|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Privacy with electronics
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Several computer things came up recently.
First, Lenovo has been forced to remove Superfishj, adware it shipped with machines until Jan 2015.
Second, the American spy agency, NSA has been putting spyware into the firmware of computers.
Third, Samsung's smart TVs have been eavesdropping on conversations in people's homes. Apparently disabling the eavesdropping might even be illegal.
Fourth, I understand that wifi networks in stores will identify the cell phones even if they don't connect, thus tagging the store visit back to the person. No doubt location via data will be sold or is being sold this way already.
I have a practice of turning off data and wifi whenever I'm not actively using it. I also turn the phone off completely, use Tinfoil Facebook and Twitter (android apps from F-droid which stop the apps completely), and use the Tor Browser Bundle on computer and phone (called orbot/orweb on the phone) for anything I would rather not be tracked at all about.
Is this sort of privacy important to you with computers or phones? Why or why not? Would you get a smart TV or do you have one? and are you worried about privacy with them?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I should care more about my online privacy but then I'm lazy. I do think it's worrying that our privacy is being invaded. I don't buy the "If you've got nothing to hide" arguments.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think AO's attitude is pretty much default - it is mine, though I do actively guard against adware and stuff like that.
When I'm googling stuff for story research - detailed information about well-known landmarks, simple explosive manufacture from common household chemicals, lock picking techniques, gunpowder grain sizes, machete wounds - I sometimes wonder if things are pinging away at GCHQ, and whether using TOR wouldn't be a bad idea considering.
But I don't know how worried I should be about that. I imagine that they've got their hands full dealing with actual terrorists, as opposed to fictional ones: the problem will come if I get my collar felt for anything else, and they seize my computers.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
TOR is an interesting one, given its genesis in the US military. I wonder if the whole function of TOR is to flag up to the security services "here is someone who wants to hide what they are doing".
quote:
One way this may be achieved is by exploiting vulnerable software on the user's computer.[10] The NSA has a technique that targets outdated Firefox browsers codenamed EgotisticalGiraffe,[11] and targets Tor users in general for close monitoring under its XKeyscore program.[12][13] Attacks against Tor are an active area of academic research,[14][15] which is welcomed by the Tor Project.[16]
(source Wikipedia)
Just a thought.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
First, Lenovo has been forced to remove Superfishj, adware it shipped with machines until Jan 2015.
Third, Samsung's smart TVs have been eavesdropping on conversations in people's homes. Apparently disabling the eavesdropping might even be illegal.
The NSA issue is somewhat separate - but on these two issues, the whole concern is the alleged 'internet of things' and connected (rather than smart as they are anything but) appliances.
TBH I think these companies are setting themselves up for a potential fall. Come the day when there is either a virus targeting one of the smart TV platforms, or a massive data breach, and these companies will get it from all sides, and I don't think Samsung and LG have the savvy to spin it in the way the average IT firm may be able to when that day comes.
They are just the kind of company the national Data Protection bodies will come down on like a ton of bricks to prove that they have teeth.
The NSA issue is somewhat separate; in some ways they are doing what an agency of that sort should be doing, however the scope appears to be rather wide, and the exploits they are using today are what criminals will be using tomorrow. Plus there is a huge danger of this kind of network being compromised, as well as the data collection being attacked.
Arguably there is more oversight of the NSA than there is of GCHQ - the former head of GCHQ's re-assurance basically coming down to 'we hire the right people, trust us'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have a practice of turning off data and wifi whenever I'm not actively using it.
Ditto. Although I was informed that that act aroused suspicion.
I'm not nearly as careful as I should be online but I really don't know what reasonable precautions look like at this point.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I really don't know what reasonable precautions look like at this point.
Good point! Some of may think we know, but my guess is that very few us are in a position to really know for sure.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have a practice of turning off data and wifi whenever I'm not actively using it.
Ditto. Although I was informed that that act aroused suspicion.
If questioned about such a thing, I would say that privacy requires no explanation, including the very question about it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Unfortunately, at this point in the US, it seems to. I've had more than one argument with police officers that my belief in the fourth amendment is why I am not giving them permission to search me, and it is not suspicious behavior, much less behavior suspicious enough to warrant a search. (They like to try to catch you in a Catch-22).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I find myself agreeing with saysay. I know of three different inmates for whom grounds for charging or convicting them variously included the following:
inmate a) their cellphone was detected in the close vicinity of the crime
inmate b) their cellphone was detected not in the vicinity of the crime; this is indicative of a ploy to throw investigators off the scent
inmate c) their cellphone was off at the time of the crime; this is indicative of a ploy to stop them being traced.
Regardless of their guilt or innocence, it's quite clear investigating magistrates can use the evidence against them - whatever it is.
My observation is that anybody under 25 is basically resigned to electronic surveillance and accepts it as a normal part of life.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I do try to pay attention to what data is being collected about me.
The thing is, a lot of the examples I'm aware of I don't object to, if it's explained what's being collected and what it's used for (which Australian privacy law pretty much requires... so long as the law's complied with...)
What I object to is (1) not being informed it's happening, or (2) data being collected for no good reason. The Samsung example mystifies me, because I cannot for the life of me think of a sensible use of the data that would justify its collection. How is this going to improve the service the television provides to you? Why does the television need to remember what you said after you said it? All it needs to do is hear your command and execute your command there and then. It seems like a case of collecting data for the sake of it.
[ 20. February 2015, 07:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly. Therefore, these devices stream what their microphones hear to a computing resource elsewhere, which does all the processing and returns the command (if there is any) to your TV. I see no reason for these data streams to be recorded routinely - there may need to be a short period where there is some recording in order to train the system to understand a particular accent/dialect.
The concern relates to whether these data are intercepted between the TV and the computing centre.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly.
Well that's just crappy design.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly.
The issue with Samsung TVs (and Smart TVs more generally) go way beyond this.
At this point, Samsung and LGs TVs (and BluRay players - which also include their media hub) send information on everything you stream or watch up back to the companies concerned. In LGs case, this - at one point - included the file names of any files you played or viewed on local USB Discs.
The only way of stopping this information being sent also disables large parts of the player itself. The Samsung interface has a vaguely worded privacy option buried deep inside the menus - if you turn this on then you are suddenly unable to use *ANY* app on the TV/player. So the only way of using iPlayer/Netflix etc involves giving them information on everything you watch, ever.
There is a high level summary here:
http://blogs.which.co.uk/technology/tvs/smart-tv-tracking-how-to-turn-it-off/
This is why I think these companies are setting themselves up for a fall - IT companies generally are more savvy about at least preserving the illusion of choice.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I'm well over 25 and I do rather casually accept the amount of surveillance I'm under, perhaps partly because I've spent my whole career working in tech so I understand what's possible (not necessarily desirable of course, but if it's possible people will be doing it).
The TOR project is interesting from a government agency point of view. GCHQ are active in that area "from both ends" as it were. They have people working on finding weaknesses that they can exploit for surveillance purposes, and people working on patches to fix issues, as they like to use the most secure system available themselves.
As for things like SmartTV, I don't feel the need for voice control so that's a feature I would have turned off permanently anyway. In terms of knowing viewing habits, I again casually accept that as a satellite subscriber, SKY have always been recording a record of what channels and programmes I watch. The supposed "benefit" for me is their customisation of on demand viewing that they send me, the payoff for them is no doubt advertising sales related to my interests.
I'm sure I am far too casual about it really.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly.
Well that's just crappy design.
It's just cheap design. The alternative is to embed every device with the processing power, with the added increase in product price. Although that may well happen, I guess it won't be far off when an all-in-one TV, hi-fi system, computer, games console is produced for the consumer market. Once the processor is there it makes sense to use it, if it costs an extra £100-200 for your TV just so that it can be voice controlled I doubt there will be the market for them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly.
The issue with Samsung TVs (and Smart TVs more generally) go way beyond this.
Well that was the concern being expressed on the news a week or so ago - that these TVs are digitising every sound in the house and sending it across the internet to some unknown computer.
quote:
At this point, Samsung and LGs TVs (and BluRay players - which also include their media hub) send information on everything you stream or watch up back to the companies concerned.
Which sounds very similar to Amazon tracking everything you browse, and making suggestions of other things you might be interested in. Or, store loyalty cards tracking your purchases. In some cases that sort of tracking can easily be opted out of without disruption of service (eg: you can disable cookies and browse online stores without logging in), in others the only way is to not use that service in the first place (eg: if you don't want a store tracking your purchases you don't have their loyalty card). The question is, do these smart devices have options to use them without them tracking you? Or is your only option to use an equivalent product from another manufacturer (or, not use that at all)? Though the second option does require you to know what those devices are doing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing about the Samsung TVs (and, for that matter any other similar voice controlled devices) is that the TV itself does not have the computing power needed to interpret what's been said and respond correctly.
Well that's just crappy design.
It's just cheap design. The alternative is to embed every device with the processing power, with the added increase in product price. Although that may well happen, I guess it won't be far off when an all-in-one TV, hi-fi system, computer, games console is produced for the consumer market. Once the processor is there it makes sense to use it, if it costs an extra £100-200 for your TV just so that it can be voice controlled I doubt there will be the market for them.
Microsoft XBOX-One is pretty close, albeit that it doesn't have it's own screen. Large hard drive capacity (and extensible storage), with apps for catch up TV, and can already do voice control of its own, as it obviously has substantial processing power for playing the games. HDMI output, surround sound output, media library capable etc etc. Pretty much all in one, except for the screen and speakers.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The question is, do these smart devices have options to use them without them tracking you? Or is your only option to use an equivalent product from another manufacturer (or, not use that at all)?
At the moment the answer to the first question is 'no'. With the exception of Sony, the TVs 'media' functionality gets switched off if you turn on privacy (see the article for details).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It seems to me that the moral course of action would be for retailers to inform potential customers that these features exist, what they do, and that they can't be turned off on some products. That leaves the customer the choice to vote with their wallets and buy products that either don't have these features or where they can be turned off.
That is assuming that the existance and non-turn-off-ability of them isn't in itself illegal.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Samsung TVs: I haven't verified this, but as I understand it the voice-related concerns are just media masturbation, given that you have to push a button on the remote to enable the voice recognition functionality. It's not listening permanently, only when asked. So if you're a big enough bell-end to push the voice-rec on the TV then say "And my PIN is ..." you deserve it.
I reserve the right to rescind if the above is shown to be categorically inaccurate.
Surveillance in general: you should all be more concerned that GCHQ and the NSA have, apparently, gained access to the encryption key database for one of the larger/largest manufacturers of SIM cards. This means they can basically pick up on any call they want, without detection, and without authorisation. That's beacoup naughty and very far-reaching.
The bolshy part of me is reaching the point where I'm seriously considering using TOR and PGP for all communications everywhere as a matter of course. If it's what you normally do, it's normal. Establish the pattern of behaviour sooner rather than later.
But like Doc Tor, I can't be arsed.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I routinely give false info to stores if I realize the loyalty card would be helpful to have.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I find myself agreeing with saysay. I know of three different inmates for whom grounds for charging or convicting them variously included the following:
inmate a) their cellphone was detected in the close vicinity of the crime
inmate b) their cellphone was detected not in the vicinity of the crime; this is indicative of a ploy to throw investigators off the scent
inmate c) their cellphone was off at the time of the crime; this is indicative of a ploy to stop them being traced.
Regardless of their guilt or innocence, it's quite clear investigating magistrates can use the evidence against them - whatever it is.
I find (b) and (c) particularly disturbing and I'd be interested to know what country/jurisdiction you are referring to, if you are willing to say.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
France. One of the disadvantages of an investigating magistrate system.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
France. One of the disadvantages of an investigating magistrate system.
I imagine though that in those cases the mobile phone was secondary evidence - though agree with you that the way in which it was handled renders it meaningless.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Samsung TVs: I haven't verified this, but as I understand it the voice-related concerns are just media masturbation, given that you have to push a button on the remote to enable the voice recognition functionality. It's not listening permanently, only when asked.
Though, as the only advantage I can see in voice recognition in a TV control is for the times when you can't find the remote it does seem pointless if you need to find the remote first.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In one case a) the person was in the vicinity, but quite possibly trying to prevent the crime and not committing it. There were no eyewitness accounts or forensic evidence placing them at the scene, and they were convicted basically because the judge could not make up their mind which of the two suspects was guilty. In another case a) I know of, the phone proximity (approx. 40 miles!) was the main reason the person was held on remand before being released on a tag pending trial.
Case b) has yet to come to trial, but to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence or testimony at all placing the person at the scene of the crime.
In case c), as far as I know the only other evidence was that the crime was vaguely similar to the actual crime, and the judge eventually dropped the accusation.
(Tangent: I know someone else who was formally recognised by his alleged victim before it was realised he was actually in jail at the time of the offence. I could go on...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Tangent: I know someone else who was formally recognised by his alleged victim before it was realised he was actually in jail at the time of the offence. I could go on...)
I love those! Particularly the ones where the prosecution tries to find any way they can to avoid admitting they made a mistake and releasing them.
But that's a tangent.
I'm also a person who has been known to give a fake phone number to stores to avoid having my purchases tracked. I don't know what they're doing with the data, but neither the governmental surveillance nor the corporate surveillance sit well with me.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Samsung TVs: I haven't verified this, but as I understand it the voice-related concerns are just media masturbation, given that you have to push a button on the remote to enable the voice recognition functionality. It's not listening permanently, only when asked.
Though, as the only advantage I can see in voice recognition in a TV control is for the times when you can't find the remote it does seem pointless if you need to find the remote first.
Agreed. But that wouldn't stop them ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that the moral course of action would be for retailers to inform potential customers that these features exist, what they do, and that they can't be turned off on some products.
Since when do large corporations do the moral thing, if it is not also required by legislation or public outcry?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I routinely give false info to stores if I realize the loyalty card would be helpful to have.
That won't help if you pay by credit or debit card, if you're carrying a cellphone powered on or if someone in the store takes a selfie and posts it on Facebook which now is tagging faces in photos with names automatically.
It's getting harder and harder to be anonymous.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Will H
Shipmate
# 4178
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I should care more about my online privacy but then I'm lazy.
There in lies the problem, most people do not care. For the corporations information about you has commercial value. Our big brother governments love the availability of all this information. So really there is no motivation to put any of this right.
For those that do still care, well, you're in the minority and frankly you'll just have to get used to it. You might be able to avoid loyalty cards, but I'm sure it won't be long before that's all ditched for a facial recognition system.
Of course, what our governments fail to realise is that all this stuff makes the lives of criminal hackers and foreign agents so much easier.
Too few people, especially in the political sphere, have sufficient knowledge of the technical and ethical issues to have a proper debate never mind to steer our society in the right direction. Even if we did have some strict laws about this stuff, don't think that for a minute that we would be able to effectively enforce it across the board.
Unfortunately it is what it is.
[ 21. February 2015, 06:01: Message edited by: Will H ]
Posts: 56 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Will H:
For those that do still care, well, you're in the minority and frankly you'll just have to get used to it.
It is somewhat amusing that on this issue alone the counsel of apathy is seen as a sophisticated and mature response in a way in which it wouldn't be on other issues. The same counsel applied - for instance - to voting, would be seen as somewhat sophomoric (see the responses to Russell Brand in the election thread).
I think this issue is important enough to keep worrying away at it. I also think that people's perceptions are subject to sudden change - anyone who has ever had their credit card details stolen is a lot more wary about supplying their details in future. Similarly, in some societies historical contingencies make them much more aware of privacy issues - even when these events happened several generations ago.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Will H
Shipmate
# 4178
|
Posted
My counsel is not apathy, in fact I stated that apathy *is* the problem.
Oh and please don't compare me to Russell Brand.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... I don't buy the "If you've got nothing to hide" arguments.
A Great and Mighty Wonder. I'm not sure this has happened before. I find myself agreeing with Ad Orientem. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Tangent: I know someone else who was formally recognised by his alleged victim before it was realised he was actually in jail at the time of the offence. I could go on...)
Well that proves he was a criminal. So he was obviously guilty. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I just downloaded Tor on my laptop and iphone.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Well that proves he was a criminal. So he was obviously guilty.
That might be more relevant than you think.
I know an even longer list of inmates who will readily admit to lots of crimes, but complain that they are not guilty of what has put them in remand this time round. I'm not saying they are all being truthful, but your criminal record very definitely plays a part - as can that of your family.
Similarly, in the electronic realm, make one online slip-up (or be mistakenly blacklisted) and that error is liable to dog you for some while.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Will H:
My counsel is not apathy, in fact I stated that apathy *is* the problem.
Apologies, I assumed your argument was the oft-fashionable 'no one has privacy, get over it' (as advanced by people like Eric Schmidt).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
quote:
I just downloaded Tor on my laptop and iphone.
Go the whole hog. Use a TAILS disc/usb stick, your laptop and a public access point.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Will H:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I should care more about my online privacy but then I'm lazy.
There in lies the problem, most people do not care. For the corporations information about you has commercial value. Our big brother governments love the availability of all this information. So really there is no motivation to put any of this right.
For those that do still care, well, you're in the minority and frankly you'll just have to get used to it. You might be able to avoid loyalty cards, but I'm sure it won't be long before that's all ditched for a facial recognition system.
Of course, what our governments fail to realise is that all this stuff makes the lives of criminal hackers and foreign agents so much easier.
Too few people, especially in the political sphere, have sufficient knowledge of the technical and ethical issues to have a proper debate never mind to steer our society in the right direction. Even if we did have some strict laws about this stuff, don't think that for a minute that we would be able to effectively enforce it across the board.
Unfortunately it is what it is.
I don't get that - to me, it's so blatantly obvious that the widespread availability of personal information leads to fraud. Especially public databases that include NI numbers or NHS IDs or even plain old date of birth. I don't get that politicians are so dumb that they can't see that their making a few squid selling off public databases to balance their books now will cause a lot more money to be spent in the future. They just don't care. And that's what is getting more and more rotten about the political system - when all the horse trading has been done, the one remaining factor that has not been traded away is electability at the next round of voting. The other values seem to end up taking second place.
On stupormarkets - they are not allowed to keep records of card transactions identifiable to an individual. Unless that individual is using a nectar card or similar. As long as they play by the rules (!) then privacy is better maintained by not selling your life for the sake of a few drops of sugared water. An even better way is to support local market traders and spend cash and buy locally produced food as much as possible.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
For years my more techie friends laughed at me for refusing to 'do' internet banking, having a dedicated card for the rare occasions when I have to shop over the web, etc, etc, etc.
Gradually they've come to see maybe I wasn't so silly after all.
There may be a little sanity coming into the whole tech-taking-over-everything, and it comes from the realisation that there are people out there who cannot be identified electronically - TWINS.
My matched pair are so alike that they still have the same fingerprints and currently available iris print technology is unable to tell them apart: as for facial recognition software ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And in a family full of identicals mine aren't the only set that flummox the system - and that's only from one family.
As for Big Brother state systems spying - many current UK government systems can't cope with people at the same address with the same date of birth...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
So I just find a lodger who has the same DOB?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Same surname, same DoB - works for Student Loan Company, various universities, etc, etc, etc
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For years my more techie friends laughed at me for refusing to 'do' internet banking, having a dedicated card for the rare occasions when I have to shop over the web, etc, etc, etc.
Gradually they've come to see maybe I wasn't so silly after all.
Amongst technical people I know - and certainly within the industry at large - there is plenty of suspicion of badly secured internet banking sites, and lots of people I know have a separate card for online purchases only (often with a lower credit limit).
Internet banking is largely a red herring anyway, whilst there has been some additional risk from allowing access to accounts online, a lot of it comes simply from the fact that the banks have at least one network connected system which has some kind of access to account details.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
There is also plenty of articles in the IT press about badly designed databases (and plenty of papers that express scepticism about the use of biometrics), the issue is that ultimately about budgets, which are always controlled by professional managers (often about as competent as the management chain in Twenty Twelve).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For years my more techie friends laughed at me for refusing to 'do' internet banking, having a dedicated card for the rare occasions when I have to shop over the web, etc, etc, etc.
Gradually they've come to see maybe I wasn't so silly after all.
Amongst technical people I know - and certainly within the industry at large - there is plenty of suspicion of badly secured internet banking sites, and lots of people I know have a separate card for online purchases only (often with a lower credit limit).
Internet banking is largely a red herring anyway, whilst there has been some additional risk from allowing access to accounts online, a lot of it comes simply from the fact that the banks have at least one network connected system which has some kind of access to account details.
I have investment, business and personal banking all internet usable. Password, plus random second password, with lock out if access is coming from somewhere it shouldn't. Further, the bank uses predictive data to refuse certain transactions without permission. Hence refusal to authorise an unauthorised transaction from Florida, and one from home when I was in Europe. The bank is also 100% responsible for any monetary losses that aren't password related. So the risk with them is not very high.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The bank is also 100% responsible for any monetary losses that aren't password related. So the risk with them is not very high.
Notionally so. The issue is that a information stolen from them being used to facilitate identity theft elsewhere. It does happen, and typically banks tend not to publicise breaches because of the bad publicity.
Besides, if authentication is strong, they'll just attack the system at some other point (browser based hijacks for instance), and even 100% reimbursement isn't instant, and can leave traces in your credit file as a number of people have found to their cost.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There are no negative attributions to the user, neither financial with accounts, nor related to credit cards nor credit ratings. These things are fraud. I did have to sign a statement of fact and return it after an online credit card fraud, but that's it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There are no negative attributions to the user, neither financial with accounts, nor related to credit cards nor credit ratings. These things are fraud. I did have to sign a statement of fact and return it after an online credit card fraud, but that's it.
Yes, in most cases it works smoothly, this isn't universal though - people have ended up with bad credit records or worse due to online fraud.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
