I just read a really great blog post. It's actually an article reprinted on one of my favorite blogs, that isn't mine ;) In short the article written by Martin Eberhard, a co-founder of Tesla Motors, details some very useful tips on protecting your privacy online. Some of the comments after the article are quite thought provoking as well. Follow the link at the bottom of this post to the Blog of Tim Ferriss, author of my current favorite book The 4 Hour Work Week.
Click here for Martin Eberhard's article on privacy!
Showing posts with label international news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international news. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Is Google Maps a Threat to Indvidual Privacy?
Privacy groups are keeping a watchful eye on Google as it posts pictures of thousands of homes on their Street View website which is accessed through Google Maps. While being able to drop in to 360 degree photographic view Times Square from a map on their site is pretty cool, many privacy groups have expressed concern about what this may mean to individual privacy. Since the Street View project started Google has been outfitting cars with special cameras and sending them to drive the streets of the world snapping pictures of everything in their path, and everything along side of it.
The cause for concern is that someone may unknowingly be photographed in a compromising position (no more mowing the front yard in the nude for me), or that a criminal may use the information to case you home before he breaks in. For the first concern, if you're doing something you shouldn't; don't do it in public dummy! Law enforcement in many parts of the world already has a much better system of cameras feeding real-time data to "the man". Of course that's a whole other story. As for the crooks casing you place, that seems like a valid concern. Nothing is seen in the photographs online that couldn't be seen from the street, but at least before Google Streets the bad guys had to go out and look around in person.
Currently the database of photographs boasts 51 cities in the US as well as parts of Italy and France. Britain and Australia are on the way later this year. The sole purpose of the campaign is to capture pictures of streets and landmarks, not the people in them, however you just can't take a picture of a busy street and not expect to catch a glimpse of a person or a car license plate. To allay concerns that someone in a photo may be identified or a license lumber tracked down, Google has created a system that blurs most recognizable faces and license plates.
Yes, I said most. No automated system is perfect so Google allows users to report inappropriate images from within the application, and may request to have their pictures taken down. Though I think the "Report Inappropriate Image" link could have been more prominent it is easily located by clicking the "Help" link. Also what about the individuals that have been photographed and don't know to look at the website to see if they want their photos removed. After reviewing the photos available on the site I think they can add quite a bit of value for navigation, landmarks have always been easier to remember than street names. Also the photos a good enough quality to see the neighbors house and read some street signs, there was not enough detail to zoom in on any windows and see inside a house.
In all I think the risk to individuals privacy is minimal since the photos are low resolution and not real-time. The danger I see is in the precedent that this might set. Once everyone gets used to cameras everywhere, it will get easier to slip more intrusions into our private lives. I guess the best question to ask is, does the public have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Does spying on the drug dealer on the corner openly selling his wares in full view place your privacy in danger or protect you from the bad guys? I won't tell you how to answer these questions because everyones limits are different. But I hope my rambling will cause you to pause for a moment to decide just where your limits do lie.
The cause for concern is that someone may unknowingly be photographed in a compromising position (no more mowing the front yard in the nude for me), or that a criminal may use the information to case you home before he breaks in. For the first concern, if you're doing something you shouldn't; don't do it in public dummy! Law enforcement in many parts of the world already has a much better system of cameras feeding real-time data to "the man". Of course that's a whole other story. As for the crooks casing you place, that seems like a valid concern. Nothing is seen in the photographs online that couldn't be seen from the street, but at least before Google Streets the bad guys had to go out and look around in person.
Currently the database of photographs boasts 51 cities in the US as well as parts of Italy and France. Britain and Australia are on the way later this year. The sole purpose of the campaign is to capture pictures of streets and landmarks, not the people in them, however you just can't take a picture of a busy street and not expect to catch a glimpse of a person or a car license plate. To allay concerns that someone in a photo may be identified or a license lumber tracked down, Google has created a system that blurs most recognizable faces and license plates.
Yes, I said most. No automated system is perfect so Google allows users to report inappropriate images from within the application, and may request to have their pictures taken down. Though I think the "Report Inappropriate Image" link could have been more prominent it is easily located by clicking the "Help" link. Also what about the individuals that have been photographed and don't know to look at the website to see if they want their photos removed. After reviewing the photos available on the site I think they can add quite a bit of value for navigation, landmarks have always been easier to remember than street names. Also the photos a good enough quality to see the neighbors house and read some street signs, there was not enough detail to zoom in on any windows and see inside a house.
In all I think the risk to individuals privacy is minimal since the photos are low resolution and not real-time. The danger I see is in the precedent that this might set. Once everyone gets used to cameras everywhere, it will get easier to slip more intrusions into our private lives. I guess the best question to ask is, does the public have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Does spying on the drug dealer on the corner openly selling his wares in full view place your privacy in danger or protect you from the bad guys? I won't tell you how to answer these questions because everyones limits are different. But I hope my rambling will cause you to pause for a moment to decide just where your limits do lie.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
G8 Threatens Privacy!
Here are a couple of important (read: terrifying) tidbits that came out of the G8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting held June 11-13, 2008.
The G8 is pushing for its member states to monitor Mobile and ISP traffic for copyrighted material to further a high level treaty called the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that they are working on. So not only will your ISP be spying on you (in the interest of fighting piracy of course) but so will your cell phone company!
I do not condone piracy, but this seems a little too Orwellian to me. Next thing you know the governments could be strong arming service providers of all types to listen for “potential terrorists” engaging in suspicious or anti government talk. Hello!?!? You may as well use the Constitution for toilet paper!
Additionally the G8 wants to give airport customs officials the right to scan portable media players for copyrighted material. Giving customs officials the power to scan MP3 players, laptops and even mobile phones for illegally-obtained copyrighted material when passengers pass through borders seems ridiculous to me. Most likely these pirated items would have come from the internet and have absolutely NOTHING to do with a person physically flying to another country. Ok, you want to look in my luggage to find the 30 Madonna CDs I burned at home and I plan to sell in Bangkok, fine, but what the hell am I going to have on my laptop that I couldn’t download sitting in a Starbucks anywhere In the world.
Of course the owners of a copyright need protection but not at the expense of personal freedom. There HAS to be a better way than having some jackbooted thug digitally violate you in the interest of protecting some rich bastard’s profit margin!
Note: The G8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting is a forum allowing the G8 (Japan, Italy, Canada, France, USA, UK, Russia, Germany) Ministers responsible for justice and home affairs, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, and the Secretary-General of the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO) to meet and discuss matters of common interest. From: http://www.g8jha2008.jp/eng/what.html
Sources
http://www.g8jha2008.jp/eng/what.html
http://www.switched.com/2008/07/20/airports-may-scan-for-illegal-downloads-on-mobile-devices/
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/g8_acta_think_twice_before_you_share_protected_content.php
The G8 is pushing for its member states to monitor Mobile and ISP traffic for copyrighted material to further a high level treaty called the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that they are working on. So not only will your ISP be spying on you (in the interest of fighting piracy of course) but so will your cell phone company!
I do not condone piracy, but this seems a little too Orwellian to me. Next thing you know the governments could be strong arming service providers of all types to listen for “potential terrorists” engaging in suspicious or anti government talk. Hello!?!? You may as well use the Constitution for toilet paper!
Additionally the G8 wants to give airport customs officials the right to scan portable media players for copyrighted material. Giving customs officials the power to scan MP3 players, laptops and even mobile phones for illegally-obtained copyrighted material when passengers pass through borders seems ridiculous to me. Most likely these pirated items would have come from the internet and have absolutely NOTHING to do with a person physically flying to another country. Ok, you want to look in my luggage to find the 30 Madonna CDs I burned at home and I plan to sell in Bangkok, fine, but what the hell am I going to have on my laptop that I couldn’t download sitting in a Starbucks anywhere In the world.
Of course the owners of a copyright need protection but not at the expense of personal freedom. There HAS to be a better way than having some jackbooted thug digitally violate you in the interest of protecting some rich bastard’s profit margin!
Note: The G8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting is a forum allowing the G8 (Japan, Italy, Canada, France, USA, UK, Russia, Germany) Ministers responsible for justice and home affairs, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, and the Secretary-General of the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO) to meet and discuss matters of common interest. From: http://www.g8jha2008.jp/eng/what.html
Sources
http://www.g8jha2008.jp/eng/what.html
http://www.switched.com/2008/07/20/airports-may-scan-for-illegal-downloads-on-mobile-devices/
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/g8_acta_think_twice_before_you_share_protected_content.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)