If this isn't the Roe vs. Wade, or Brown vs. Board of Education-type of landmark case for privacy rights, then I don't know what is...
Here's the story: A police department in Ontario, Calif., issued two-pagers pagers to its SWAT team, and initially told the team that any messages sent via the pagers would be treated just like computer e-mail is, with no expectation of privacy for the contents.
After a few months, the Police department lieutenant then reversed his position and told his subordinates that the department would consider any messages sent via the pagers private and would not review them only if the officers paid for any personal messages beyond a monthly character limit of 25,000.
A few months later, the police department decided to review its policy to determine if it needed to increase its monthly limit. The department reviewed the transcripts of one of the users with the most texts, a Sgt. Jeff Quon. What they found when they reviewed the messages was that Quon had exchanged hundreds of (what else?) sexually explicit messages with his estranged wife, his girlfriend and another member of his team (I guess there is no crime in Ontario with all this free time.). The Sergeant paid for all of the messages he sent, but he was eventually cited and reprimanded for using department-owned property for both personal use on the job, and for using obscene language on the device, which is a violation of department rules.
Quon, along with the ex-wife, girlfriend, and fellow officer involved with the messaging, all brought suit against the department for privacy violations.
The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case next week.
The question is this: is the general expectation of privacy inviolate enough to rule in favor of the Sergeant. Or, should the US-oriented policy of ‘there is no expectation of privacy on any company-owned or issued equipment’ rule the day in favor of the police department?
This the first real, substantive case to test privacy rights in the Internet era The issue at the heart of the matter is whether personal messages are indeed private when transmitted by an electronic device provided by an employer. But here is why this case really matters in the long run: texting on a pager aside, what happens if you are using e-mail or Facebook or Instant Messenger to communicate with parties outside of your employer? Should those messages be the property of the company since they were transmitted using company-owned devices? What about the privacy rights of the parties that you are messaging? They do not work for the company so why should their privacy rights be infringed upon by the employer of the sender?
Next week’s decision could be a simple reaffirming decision of individual rights being protected, or a very ominous sign about the impending and continual loss of rights and privacy in the digital age. Either way, you should pay attention.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Privacy Premium....a.k.a. the 'Privacy Tax'
To continue in the vein of my last post, I wanted to dilate a bit on the idea of the privacy premium. As I started earlier, I don’t think it is too unreasonable to imagine a society in the not too distant future where privacy and security, or the privilege of it, becomes monetized enough to the point that it is not just marketed as a competitive advantage, but as an added ‘feature’ that company will charge you to implement.
We have had for years small examples of this idea in practice. Think about the security on your house; you have locks on the windows and doors but that’s about where it ends. For an additional cost, you can contract with a security service that will provide additional security piece of mind over-and-above what you practically get for free now. Recall my previous blog example of how today you pay an extra cost for not having your name in the phone book. Think about that for a second – we actually pay extra so that people can’t find us! See what I mean? What was once a status symbol, has become a privacy albatross.
At the far end of this spectrum will exist a service that erases all of your digital existence from any and every site or network you ever used or registered. So, no Google or Bing search will ever bring back any indication that you ever even looked at a computer. All for a fee.
Today, we already have two very stringent state data security laws, Massachusetts and Nevada, which call for, among other things, encryption of sensitive on any devices that are portable (what device isn’t these days?). Any size company that holds or processes the data of the residents of these two states are impacted, regardless of whether or not they are a ‘financial institution.’ Encrypting data is not easy; and it is not cheap. Small companies will inevitably be unduly burdened. The extra costs that these companies incur will have to be passed on somehow. Where and how do you think the costs will go and in what form? Higher costs of goods and services to the end users, of course. Translation: a privacy tax.
How does this sound for a marketing pitch? “We back-up all of our customer’s data on media that goes offsite every week to ensure continuity of business. Want to ensure that your data is truly private and secure, and from the threat of being lost or stolen? Of course. You will want to ensure that you select the “Assurity” option when you enroll in our program. For only an additional $5.95 a month, you will have the piece of mind of knowing that your personal information is put onto our secure, AES 256-bit encrypted tapes which reside in a hardened vault, safe and secure from prying eyes….”
We have had for years small examples of this idea in practice. Think about the security on your house; you have locks on the windows and doors but that’s about where it ends. For an additional cost, you can contract with a security service that will provide additional security piece of mind over-and-above what you practically get for free now. Recall my previous blog example of how today you pay an extra cost for not having your name in the phone book. Think about that for a second – we actually pay extra so that people can’t find us! See what I mean? What was once a status symbol, has become a privacy albatross.
At the far end of this spectrum will exist a service that erases all of your digital existence from any and every site or network you ever used or registered. So, no Google or Bing search will ever bring back any indication that you ever even looked at a computer. All for a fee.
Today, we already have two very stringent state data security laws, Massachusetts and Nevada, which call for, among other things, encryption of sensitive on any devices that are portable (what device isn’t these days?). Any size company that holds or processes the data of the residents of these two states are impacted, regardless of whether or not they are a ‘financial institution.’ Encrypting data is not easy; and it is not cheap. Small companies will inevitably be unduly burdened. The extra costs that these companies incur will have to be passed on somehow. Where and how do you think the costs will go and in what form? Higher costs of goods and services to the end users, of course. Translation: a privacy tax.
How does this sound for a marketing pitch? “We back-up all of our customer’s data on media that goes offsite every week to ensure continuity of business. Want to ensure that your data is truly private and secure, and from the threat of being lost or stolen? Of course. You will want to ensure that you select the “Assurity” option when you enroll in our program. For only an additional $5.95 a month, you will have the piece of mind of knowing that your personal information is put onto our secure, AES 256-bit encrypted tapes which reside in a hardened vault, safe and secure from prying eyes….”
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Privacy À La Carte
Maybe you've already heard of a recent incident in a Philadelphia suburb where a school district gave a student a laptop to take home and use. What the student did not know was that the web cam on the laptop could be remotely activated and images could be captured and viewed by teachers. (Ostensibly, the laptop was configured to capture images of the machine’s user if it was lost or stolen.) The way the student found out that something was wrong was that a teacher reprimanded him for “inappropriate behavior” – at home! (Via the webcam, the teacher thought the student was taking pills, but it tuned out to be Mike & Ike’s candy. I know, I know…happens to me all the time, too.)
The lack of boundaries of privacy has only been exemplified with this web cam issue. The lines are increasingly grayed between where one’s responsibilities end and another’s privacy begins. Technology has all but shattered the partitions that used to exist in society used to areas of black and white. What is curious though is that the boy and his family are screaming about his privacy violatd, but he and his entire family have already begin the media tour, appearing on CBS' The Early Show the Saturday after it happened. (Translation: We value our privacy, unless we can extract some value out of it....)
The genie is out of the proverbial bottle with the state of privacy we once enjoyed. I envision a near future where privacy is no longer the quasi-right that people think it is today (BTW, the word ‘privacy’ is not mentioned even once in the Constitution); it is or will be a monetized privilege. Sort of like a drivers’ license is. Consider privacy as a ‘pay for service in future. You want privacy? You pay extra – like the extra cost you incur for not having your name in the phone book.
As we surrender ourselves evermore to the Siren’s call of convenience that technology sings to us, you either plug your eyes and ears (that is, stay off the grid, or at least off Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or any reality show), or do what Ulysses did when he and ship passed the island of the Siren’s; he had his crew tie him to the mast and refuse to let him go no matter what he said.
That is, he dealt with it
Note: Wikipedia notes that “the term "siren song" refers to an appeal that is hard to resist but that, if heeded, will lead to a bad result”.
The lack of boundaries of privacy has only been exemplified with this web cam issue. The lines are increasingly grayed between where one’s responsibilities end and another’s privacy begins. Technology has all but shattered the partitions that used to exist in society used to areas of black and white. What is curious though is that the boy and his family are screaming about his privacy violatd, but he and his entire family have already begin the media tour, appearing on CBS' The Early Show the Saturday after it happened. (Translation: We value our privacy, unless we can extract some value out of it....)
The genie is out of the proverbial bottle with the state of privacy we once enjoyed. I envision a near future where privacy is no longer the quasi-right that people think it is today (BTW, the word ‘privacy’ is not mentioned even once in the Constitution); it is or will be a monetized privilege. Sort of like a drivers’ license is. Consider privacy as a ‘pay for service in future. You want privacy? You pay extra – like the extra cost you incur for not having your name in the phone book.
As we surrender ourselves evermore to the Siren’s call of convenience that technology sings to us, you either plug your eyes and ears (that is, stay off the grid, or at least off Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or any reality show), or do what Ulysses did when he and ship passed the island of the Siren’s; he had his crew tie him to the mast and refuse to let him go no matter what he said.
That is, he dealt with it
Note: Wikipedia notes that “the term "siren song" refers to an appeal that is hard to resist but that, if heeded, will lead to a bad result”.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Is Privacy dead? Or just Modesty?
As I have noted before, Sun Microsystems co-founder Scott McNealy was famously quoted saying: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." But that was said way back in 1999!! Back then, there was no Facebook, no MySpace, no Twitter, nor LinkedIn; Google was barely a year old.
And privacy was already dead?!? (Where was I?)
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Facebook recently said in an interview that "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time." And then went on to say that “ …we view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are," he said.
Interesting. So is Facebook and other social networking sites only reflections of what is currently acceptable in society at this point in time? If that is the case, then why must there be laws, for example, against drunk driving if people should know when to quit (the social norm) and not to do something dangerous like get behind the wheel after too many cocktails? Yet we have had to put laws in place that actually define what is drunk in the legal sense (i.e. blood alcohol level). Self-regulation, at least in this instance of personal behaviour, does not universally work out so well.
So what drives what? Does Facebook reflect the new normalcy of openness or does it merely provide an outlet for pent–up desire for everyone to engage in a community, share some intimate details with friends (but mostly acquaintances), and attempt to parse the much desired 15 minutes of fame into smaller, longer bits. Are our egos crowding out the sense of Victorain modesty that used to prevail in company of strangers, or even friends? With 350 million users now on Facebook, it is difficult to believe that only the extroverts have inherited the Earth…..
The question is: are sites like Facebook (not the only enabler here) simply the exploitation tool that drives the users to reveal more private detail, or rather, just the medium? Social networking sites like FB can be no different than videos like “Girls Gone Wild.” This outlet more than enables bad behavior; it rewards it with some kind of validation and exposure. But then again, should I be able to blame the New Jersey Turnpike for me being caught going 100 miles an hour…..?
And privacy was already dead?!? (Where was I?)
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Facebook recently said in an interview that "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time." And then went on to say that “ …we view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are," he said.
Interesting. So is Facebook and other social networking sites only reflections of what is currently acceptable in society at this point in time? If that is the case, then why must there be laws, for example, against drunk driving if people should know when to quit (the social norm) and not to do something dangerous like get behind the wheel after too many cocktails? Yet we have had to put laws in place that actually define what is drunk in the legal sense (i.e. blood alcohol level). Self-regulation, at least in this instance of personal behaviour, does not universally work out so well.
So what drives what? Does Facebook reflect the new normalcy of openness or does it merely provide an outlet for pent–up desire for everyone to engage in a community, share some intimate details with friends (but mostly acquaintances), and attempt to parse the much desired 15 minutes of fame into smaller, longer bits. Are our egos crowding out the sense of Victorain modesty that used to prevail in company of strangers, or even friends? With 350 million users now on Facebook, it is difficult to believe that only the extroverts have inherited the Earth…..
The question is: are sites like Facebook (not the only enabler here) simply the exploitation tool that drives the users to reveal more private detail, or rather, just the medium? Social networking sites like FB can be no different than videos like “Girls Gone Wild.” This outlet more than enables bad behavior; it rewards it with some kind of validation and exposure. But then again, should I be able to blame the New Jersey Turnpike for me being caught going 100 miles an hour…..?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
2009 Privacy Putz of Year Award
In the tradition of the year–end custom of awarding something or someone with a “Best of” award for outstanding achievement in a particular category, I have decided to do the same with the area of privacy – with a bit of a twist. We constantly hear about of our loss of privacy as one of the chief byproducts of our interconnected, always-on world, and how we are barely grasping to what’s left of the shredded veil of secrecy behind which we were so used to hiding. I thought it would be more interesting to award the one person who has done the most to willingly obliterate his or her right of privacy.
So, welcome to the 1st annual ‘Privacy Putz of the Year’ award. Unlike the complexity of trying to choose who has done the most to advance the interests of privacy and security in our culture and day-to-day lives, it was comparatively simple this year to highlight the individuals who have done the complete opposite of what makes sense as it relates to try and maintain one’s anonymity and low-profile in this quasi-Orwellian world of me, me, me on the Web and TV.
For this year’s inaugural award, I decided to forgo the obvious, the deluded attention-seekers who were purposely willing to give their privacy away for a small taste of the nectar of fame. It would have been too easy, for example, to choose one of the three top higher-profile candidates: first, Nadya Suleman, the so called “Octo-mom”. This is the lady who recently produced a set of octuplets and then signed on to her own reality show so we could all voyeuristically enjoy another person taking care of their kids, only in this case it was 14 of them at the same time time. What was more interesting about Suleman, however, was that the world soon found out that this 33-year-old single mother already had six children who were born, just like the octuplets, through in vitro fertilization. (Six isn’t enough?!)
The second candidates I quickly discounted were the White House party crashers, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, I spoke about in my last blog who must have been shocked, shocked I say! that their personal lives would be so scrutinized after this little misdeed of theirs. However, to their credit, the Salahis did organize their Facebook page very nicely, fully detailing every person and dignitary they met that night, with glossy color photos in case the Secret Service didn’t know where to look for evidence of the security breach.
Finally, the last obvious candidate that was too easy to ignore was the pair of Kate and Jon Gosselin. These two have been so overexposed in the media and their story has been so hashed and rehashed that it warrants no further comment from me. They have reaped the wind; so let them now sow the whirlwind.
As for the viable candidates, First Runner up to the Privacy Putz award goes to one Craig Lynch, a 28 year-old prison escapee from Suffolk, England, who escaped from prison back in September but has not been content to just keep the low-profile of your average bloke who manages to make it over the prison wall, but has continued to update his Facebook status regularly - describing everything from what he had for dinner to who his next girlfriend in the New Year might be. This might be the digital version of the trail of popcorn…
But the real winner of the Privacy Putz Award for 2009 goes to the one individual who in my opinion did the most harm to her own privacy, the most to undermine her overall well being and anonymity, and that person was one Natalie Blanchard, an IBM employee from Quebec. Ms. Blanchard was out of work on long-term disability for depression for 18 months when suddenly her insurance company, Manulife, immediately terminated her monthly payments. How was it that the company came to such a definitive diagnosis of Ms. Blanchard’s ostensibly legitimate condition? A psychological examination? A thorough medical evaluation? Rock, paper, scisssors? Nope. Ms. Blanchard, actually, was apparently only too eager to assist the company in its conclusive diagnosis of her remarkable recovery from major depression.
Blanchard undermined her own case by posting certain pictures and status updates of herself on her Facebook page. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, in the past 18 months while she was “recovering,” a series of pictures she posted on her Facebook page show her taking the time-tested remedy for depression by attending a Chippendale’s male strip show while on vacation. Other pictures showed Blanchard at bars, beaches, and on three other 4-day holiday trips, which were recommended by her psychologist all the while collecting the benefits from her job at IBM. A Facebook status message said that she had climbed a mountain recently, as well. You go, girl.
It appears that her privacy settings, or lack thereof, on her Facebook page allowed either someone from her company or someone from the insurance company to view her tell-tale postings, because when she eventually called the insurance company to inquire why her payments had abruptly ceased, the reason given was that according to the photos and postings on her Facebook page, Blanchard was apparently no longer depressed! Wow! Manulife was able to diagnosis Ms. Blanchard essentially through hearsay, assumption and innuendo all from the comfort of the office PC. One small step for psychology; one giant leap for Manulife. Case closed. It’s a Holiday miracle.
Congratulations to Natalie Blanchard for the 2009 Privacy Putz of the Year award. Well deserved.
As I attempt to emphasize in every blog post here, we now live in a post-privacy world, devoid of the traditional trappings of common sense, guilt, shame and discretion. Using tools like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and even blogs like this puts your life, opinion, ideology and in some cases private life right out on the web for all to see, and see it forever.
Just think, the world used to be your oyster; now it is your fishbowl.
Happy New Year.
So, welcome to the 1st annual ‘Privacy Putz of the Year’ award. Unlike the complexity of trying to choose who has done the most to advance the interests of privacy and security in our culture and day-to-day lives, it was comparatively simple this year to highlight the individuals who have done the complete opposite of what makes sense as it relates to try and maintain one’s anonymity and low-profile in this quasi-Orwellian world of me, me, me on the Web and TV.
For this year’s inaugural award, I decided to forgo the obvious, the deluded attention-seekers who were purposely willing to give their privacy away for a small taste of the nectar of fame. It would have been too easy, for example, to choose one of the three top higher-profile candidates: first, Nadya Suleman, the so called “Octo-mom”. This is the lady who recently produced a set of octuplets and then signed on to her own reality show so we could all voyeuristically enjoy another person taking care of their kids, only in this case it was 14 of them at the same time time. What was more interesting about Suleman, however, was that the world soon found out that this 33-year-old single mother already had six children who were born, just like the octuplets, through in vitro fertilization. (Six isn’t enough?!)
The second candidates I quickly discounted were the White House party crashers, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, I spoke about in my last blog who must have been shocked, shocked I say! that their personal lives would be so scrutinized after this little misdeed of theirs. However, to their credit, the Salahis did organize their Facebook page very nicely, fully detailing every person and dignitary they met that night, with glossy color photos in case the Secret Service didn’t know where to look for evidence of the security breach.
Finally, the last obvious candidate that was too easy to ignore was the pair of Kate and Jon Gosselin. These two have been so overexposed in the media and their story has been so hashed and rehashed that it warrants no further comment from me. They have reaped the wind; so let them now sow the whirlwind.
As for the viable candidates, First Runner up to the Privacy Putz award goes to one Craig Lynch, a 28 year-old prison escapee from Suffolk, England, who escaped from prison back in September but has not been content to just keep the low-profile of your average bloke who manages to make it over the prison wall, but has continued to update his Facebook status regularly - describing everything from what he had for dinner to who his next girlfriend in the New Year might be. This might be the digital version of the trail of popcorn…
But the real winner of the Privacy Putz Award for 2009 goes to the one individual who in my opinion did the most harm to her own privacy, the most to undermine her overall well being and anonymity, and that person was one Natalie Blanchard, an IBM employee from Quebec. Ms. Blanchard was out of work on long-term disability for depression for 18 months when suddenly her insurance company, Manulife, immediately terminated her monthly payments. How was it that the company came to such a definitive diagnosis of Ms. Blanchard’s ostensibly legitimate condition? A psychological examination? A thorough medical evaluation? Rock, paper, scisssors? Nope. Ms. Blanchard, actually, was apparently only too eager to assist the company in its conclusive diagnosis of her remarkable recovery from major depression.
Blanchard undermined her own case by posting certain pictures and status updates of herself on her Facebook page. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, in the past 18 months while she was “recovering,” a series of pictures she posted on her Facebook page show her taking the time-tested remedy for depression by attending a Chippendale’s male strip show while on vacation. Other pictures showed Blanchard at bars, beaches, and on three other 4-day holiday trips, which were recommended by her psychologist all the while collecting the benefits from her job at IBM. A Facebook status message said that she had climbed a mountain recently, as well. You go, girl.
It appears that her privacy settings, or lack thereof, on her Facebook page allowed either someone from her company or someone from the insurance company to view her tell-tale postings, because when she eventually called the insurance company to inquire why her payments had abruptly ceased, the reason given was that according to the photos and postings on her Facebook page, Blanchard was apparently no longer depressed! Wow! Manulife was able to diagnosis Ms. Blanchard essentially through hearsay, assumption and innuendo all from the comfort of the office PC. One small step for psychology; one giant leap for Manulife. Case closed. It’s a Holiday miracle.
Congratulations to Natalie Blanchard for the 2009 Privacy Putz of the Year award. Well deserved.
As I attempt to emphasize in every blog post here, we now live in a post-privacy world, devoid of the traditional trappings of common sense, guilt, shame and discretion. Using tools like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and even blogs like this puts your life, opinion, ideology and in some cases private life right out on the web for all to see, and see it forever.
Just think, the world used to be your oyster; now it is your fishbowl.
Happy New Year.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Paradox of Privacy - Part III, The Exciting Conclusion
I hadn't intended this piece to run beyond one part, let alone two, but there are just too many interesting things to discuss about who the biggest threat to your privacy is…
I want to discuss the recent event of the two publicity seekers who crashed the White House state dinner last month. Their obvious desperate need for attention and B-List fame reflects what Andy Warhol said about everyone: we all want 15 minutes in the spotlight. Some get it. But at what cost? What the party-crashing couple is now finding out about the dark side is fame (even fleeting, undeserved fame like theirs) is what the first casualty always is: privacy.
Because these two miscreants put themselves in the spotlight willingly, it is obvious that the last thing they wanted from the experience is anonymity. What they are now and will experience a hundredfold more is the degree to which the blogosphere will go to turn over every stone and look for every skeleton in every closet to attempt to (rightfully) embarrass these two. What they will find is that they have awakened a sleeping giant of spite and vindictiveness that will rain down all hell upon them. You can see it already occurring by the revelations that the couple is involved in a plethora of lawsuits, bankruptcies and intra-family fighting.
Why? I believe primarily that Americans are easy lot to entertain and amuse - American Idol, People Magazine, NASCAR don't require much brain matter to process - but the one thing we demand is that our 'celebrities' bring something to the table. Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and Oprah are famous for a reason - talent. Talent is their currency and we exchange it for fame and adoration. We realize at some level that we cannot easily be like them because they are 'better' then us in some unique way. The couple that crashed the White House is not better than us in any way; we resent their pretentiousness and base arrogance that is offset with nothing in return - it is a classic bait and switch. That they could crash the White House party - okay, good trick - but what do we get in return? A vacuum. Luciano Pavarotti could be arrogant; Bill Gates can be arrogant; Dr. J can be arrogant, he was after all one of the greatest basketball players that ever lived. These two, however, deserve what they get.
Most of only give up our privacy piecemeal – a bit here for some small convenience, a bit there for a 25% off coupon, etc. This couple relinquished their personal privacy wholesale with this selfish and thoughtless antic. Who will they have to blame for the sudden and very public loss of privacy? Who else? Themselves. I hope it was worth it.
I want to discuss the recent event of the two publicity seekers who crashed the White House state dinner last month. Their obvious desperate need for attention and B-List fame reflects what Andy Warhol said about everyone: we all want 15 minutes in the spotlight. Some get it. But at what cost? What the party-crashing couple is now finding out about the dark side is fame (even fleeting, undeserved fame like theirs) is what the first casualty always is: privacy.
Because these two miscreants put themselves in the spotlight willingly, it is obvious that the last thing they wanted from the experience is anonymity. What they are now and will experience a hundredfold more is the degree to which the blogosphere will go to turn over every stone and look for every skeleton in every closet to attempt to (rightfully) embarrass these two. What they will find is that they have awakened a sleeping giant of spite and vindictiveness that will rain down all hell upon them. You can see it already occurring by the revelations that the couple is involved in a plethora of lawsuits, bankruptcies and intra-family fighting.
Why? I believe primarily that Americans are easy lot to entertain and amuse - American Idol, People Magazine, NASCAR don't require much brain matter to process - but the one thing we demand is that our 'celebrities' bring something to the table. Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and Oprah are famous for a reason - talent. Talent is their currency and we exchange it for fame and adoration. We realize at some level that we cannot easily be like them because they are 'better' then us in some unique way. The couple that crashed the White House is not better than us in any way; we resent their pretentiousness and base arrogance that is offset with nothing in return - it is a classic bait and switch. That they could crash the White House party - okay, good trick - but what do we get in return? A vacuum. Luciano Pavarotti could be arrogant; Bill Gates can be arrogant; Dr. J can be arrogant, he was after all one of the greatest basketball players that ever lived. These two, however, deserve what they get.
Most of only give up our privacy piecemeal – a bit here for some small convenience, a bit there for a 25% off coupon, etc. This couple relinquished their personal privacy wholesale with this selfish and thoughtless antic. Who will they have to blame for the sudden and very public loss of privacy? Who else? Themselves. I hope it was worth it.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Paradox of Privacy - Part II
I want to continue my discussion from last month one of the biggest threats to your right of privacy - you.
If you have a Facebook account you probably get 10-15 requests a week from your Friends to answer or play games or contests that require some personal information to be input or revealed - the most famous and pervasive application was the "25 Things You Don't Know About Me" which took the Facebook community by storm over the spring and summer.
Notwithstanding that fact that you get to know random, irrelevant and mostly inane 'facts' about your friends and friends of friends, what is more insdious is what you reveal to them and the world at large. Since most cases of identity theft are commmited by people that the victim knows well or has some relationship with, it is not improbable that you may have 'friended' that person on Facebook as well. Now that they know what your first dog's name was, or favorite grade school teacher, or that you eat peas with a fork, that insight allows them to glean little bits of info about you that helps build a case of identity theft. Think about all of the websites that ask either passwords or security questions for credentials. You supply very similar information as the answers, and in many questions also provide your own questions - some which mirror the ones asked by that Facebook application iself. Perfect fodder for ID thieves....and most valuable because it comes right from the source.
So think before you surrender little pieces of your personal life for what you may think to be only harmless and transitory amusement (and for free!). It may have some very long-lasting and unwanted repurcussions.
If you have a Facebook account you probably get 10-15 requests a week from your Friends to answer or play games or contests that require some personal information to be input or revealed - the most famous and pervasive application was the "25 Things You Don't Know About Me" which took the Facebook community by storm over the spring and summer.
Notwithstanding that fact that you get to know random, irrelevant and mostly inane 'facts' about your friends and friends of friends, what is more insdious is what you reveal to them and the world at large. Since most cases of identity theft are commmited by people that the victim knows well or has some relationship with, it is not improbable that you may have 'friended' that person on Facebook as well. Now that they know what your first dog's name was, or favorite grade school teacher, or that you eat peas with a fork, that insight allows them to glean little bits of info about you that helps build a case of identity theft. Think about all of the websites that ask either passwords or security questions for credentials. You supply very similar information as the answers, and in many questions also provide your own questions - some which mirror the ones asked by that Facebook application iself. Perfect fodder for ID thieves....and most valuable because it comes right from the source.
So think before you surrender little pieces of your personal life for what you may think to be only harmless and transitory amusement (and for free!). It may have some very long-lasting and unwanted repurcussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)