Breaching Data Privacy for a Social Cause

Breaching Data Privacy for a Social Cause

Data partnerships are increasingly justified as a social good, but in a climate where companies are losing consumer trust through data breaches, privacy concerns begin to outweigh the social benefits of data sharing. 

 

This week, Apple is gaining consumer trust with its revamped Privacy Page. Facebook follows Apple’s lead as they become more wary about sharing a petabyte of data with Social Science One researchers due to increasing data privacy concerns. Also, law enforcement may be changing the genetic privacy game as they gain unprecedented access to millions of DNA records to solve homicide cases and identify victims.

Apple is setting the standard for taking consumer privacy seriously—Privacy as a Social Good

Apple is setting the stage for consumer privacy with its redesigned privacy page. Apple CEO Tim Cook announced, “At Apple, privacy is built into everything we make. You decide what you share, how you share it, and who you share it with. Here’s how we protect your data.” (Source)

There is no doubt that Apple is leveraging data privacy. When entering Apple’s new privacy landing page, bold letters are used to emphasize how privacy is a fundamental part of the company, essentially one of their core values (Source). 

Apple’s privacy page explains how they’ve designed their devices with their consumers’ privacy in mind. They also showcase how this methodology applies to their eight Apple apps: Safari browser, Apple Maps, Apple Photos, iMessage, Siri Virtual Assistant, Apple News, Wallet and Apple Pay, and Apple Health.

A privacy feature fundamental to many of Apple’s apps is that the data on an Apple device is locally stored and is never released to Apple’s servers unless the user consents to share their data, or the user personally shares his/her data with others. Personalized features, such as smart suggestions, are based on random identifiers.

  • Safari Browser blocks the data that websites collect about site visitors with an Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature and makes it harder for individuals to be identified by providing a simplified system profile for users. 
  • Apple Maps does not require users to sign in with their Apple ID. This eliminates the risk of user location and search information history linking to their identity. Navigation is based on random identifiers as opposed to individual identifiers.  

Photos taken on Apple devices are processed locally and are not shared unless stored on a cloud or shared by the user.

  • iMessages aren’t shared with Apple and are encrypted via end-to-end device encryption.
  • Siri, Apple’s voice-activated virtual assistant can process information without the information being sent to Apple’s servers. Data that is sent back to Apple is not associated with the user and is only used to update Siri.
  • Apple News curates personalized news and reading content based on random identifiers that are not associated with the user’s identity. 
  • Apple Wallet and Pay creates a device account number anytime a new card is added. Transactional data is only shared between the bank and the individual.
  • Apple Health is designed to empower the user to share their personal health information with whom they choose. The data is encrypted and can only be accessed by the user via passcodes. 

 

Facebook realizes the ethical, legal, and technical concerns in sharing 1,000,000 gigabytes of data with social science researchers

Facebook has been on the wrong side of data privacy ever since the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 where users’ data was obtained, without their consent, for political advertising. Now that Facebook is approaching privacy with users best interest in mind, this is creating tension between the worlds of technology and social science. 

Earlier this year, Facebook and Social Science One partnered in a new model of industry-academic partnership initiative to “help people better understand the broader impact of social media on democracy—as well as improve our work to protect the integrity of elections.” said Facebook (Source). 

Facebook agreed to share 1,000,000 gigabytes of data with Social Science One to conduct research and analysis but has failed to meet their promises. 

According to Facebook, it was almost impossible to apply anonymization techniques such as differential privacy to the necessary data without stripping it completely of its analytical value.   

Facebook half-heartedly released some data as they approached deadlines and pressure, but what they released and what they promised was incomparable. Facebooks’ failure to share the data they agreed to counters the proposed social benefit of using the data to study the impact of disinformation campaigns. 

Facebook is torn between a commitment to contributing to a socially good cause without breaching the privacy of its users. 

This exemplifies how Facebook may not have been fully prepared to shift its business model from one that involved data monetization to a CSR-driven (corporate social responsibility) model where data sharing is used for research while keeping privacy in mind. 

Will Facebook eventually fulfill their promises?

 

Socially Beneficial DNA Data: Should Warrants be given to access Genealogy website databases?

At a police convention last week, Floridian detective, Michael Fields, revealed how he received a valid law enforcement request to access GEDmatch.com data (Source).

GEDmatch is a genealogy website that contains over a million users’ records. But, does the social benefit accrued outweigh the privacy violation to users whose data was exposed without their consent?

Last year, GEDmatch faced a mix of scrutiny and praise when they helped police identify the Golden State Killer after granting them access to their database (Source).  After privacy concerns surfaced, GEDmatch updated its privacy terms. Access was only permitted to law enforcement from users who opted-in to share their data. Additionally, police authorities are limited to searching for the purposes of, “murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, aggravated rape, robbery or aggravated assault” cases (Source).

This recent warrant granted to detective Fields overrode GEDmatch privacy terms by allowing the detective to access data of all users, even those who did not consent. This was the first time a judge agreed to a warrant of this kind. This changes the tone in genetic privacy, potentially setting precedent about who has access to genetic data. 

 

Join our newsletter


The Consequences of Data Mishandling: Twitter, TransUnion, and WhatsApp

The Consequences of Data Mishandling: Twitter, TransUnion, and WhatsApp

Who should you trust? This week highlights the personal privacy risks and organizational consequences when data is mishandled or utilized against the best interest of the account holder. Twitter provides advertisers with user phone numbers that had been used for two-factor authentication, 37,000 Canadians’ personal information is leaked in a TransUnion cybersecurity attack, and a GDPR-related investigation into Facebook and Twitter threatens billions in fines.
Twitter shared your phone number with advertisers.

Early this week, Twitter admitted to using the phone numbers of users, which had been provided for two-factor authentication, to help profile users and target ads. This allowed the company to create “Tailored Audiences,” an industry-standard product that enables “advertisers to target ads to customers based on the advertiser’s own marketing lists.” In other words, the profiles in the marketing list an advertiser uploaded were matched to Twitter’s user list with the phone numbers users provided for security purposes.

When users provided their phone numbers to enhance account security, they never realized that this would be the tradeoff. This manipulative approach to gaining user-information raises questions over Twitter’s data privacy protocols. Moreover, the fact that they provided this confidential information to advertisers should leave you wondering what other information is made available to business partners and how (Source). 

Curiously, after realizing what happened, rather than come forward, the company rushed to hire Ads Policy Specialists to look into the problem. 

On September 17, the company “addressed an “error” that allowed advertisers to target users based on phone numbers.” (Source) That same day, they then posted a job advertisement for someone to train internal Twitter employees on ad policies, and to join a team working on re-evaluating their advertising products.

Now, nearly a month later, Twitter has publicly admitted their mistake and said they are unsure how many users were affected. While they insist no personal data was shared externally, and are clearly taking steps to ensure this doesn’t occur again, is it too late?

Third-Party Attacks: How Valid Login Credentials Led to Banking Information Exposure 

A cybersecurity breach at TransUnion highlights the rapidly increasing threat of third party attacks and the challenge to prevent them. The personal data of 37,000 Canadians was compromised when legitimate business customer’s login credentials were used illegally to harvest TransUnion data. This includes their name, date of birth, current and past home addresses, credit and loan obligation, and repayment history. While this may not include information on bank account numbers, social insurance numbers may also have been at risk. This compromise occurred between June 28 and July 11 but was not detected until August (Source).

While alarming, these attacks are very frequent, accounting for around 25% of cyberattacks in the past year. Daniel Tobok, CEO of Cytelligence Inc. reports that the threat of third party attacks is increasing, as more than ever, criminals are using the accounts of trusted third parties (customers, vendors) to gain access to their targets’ data. This method of entry is hard to detect due to the nature of the actions taken. In fact, often the attackers are simulating the typical actions taken by the users. In this case, the credentials for the leading division of Canadian Western Bank were used to login and access the credit information of nearly 40,000 Canadians, an action that is not atypical of the bank’s regular activities (Source).

Cybersecurity attacks like this are what has caused the rise on two-factor authentication, which looks to enhance security -perhaps in every case other than Twitter’s. However, if companies only invest in hardware, they only solve half the issue, for the human side of cybersecurity is a much more serious threat than often acknowledged or considered. “As an attacker, you always attack the weakest link, and in a lot of cases unfortunately the weakest link is in front of the keyboard.” (Source)

 

Hefty fines loom over Twitter and Facebook as the Irish DPC closes their investigation.

The Data Protection Commission (DPC) in Ireland has recently finished an investigation into Facebook’s WhatsApp and Twitter over breaches to GDPR (Source). These investigations looked into whether or not WhatsApp provided information about the app’s services in a transparent manner to both users and non-users, and about a Twitter data breach notification in January 2019.

Now, these cases have moved onto the decision-making phase, and the companies are now at risk of a fine up to 4% of their global annual revenue. This means Facebook could expect to pay more than $2 billion.

This decision moves to Helen Dixon, Ireland’s chief data regulator, and we expect to hear by the end of the year. These are landmark cases, as the first Irish legal proceedings connected to US companies since GDPR came into effect a little over a year ago (May 2018) (Source). Big tech companies are on edge about the verdict, as the Irish DPC plays the largest GDPR supervisory role over most big tech companies, due to the fact that many use Ireland as the base for their EU headquarters. What’s more, the DPC has opened dozens of investigations into other major tech companies, including Apple and Google, and perhaps the chief data regulator’s decision will signal more of what’s to come (Source).

In the end, it is clear that the businesses and the public must become more privacy-conscious, as between Twitter’s data mishandling, the TransUnion third-party attack, and the GDPR investigation coming to a close, it is clear that privacy is affecting everyday operations and lives.

Join our newsletter

What do Trump, Google, and Facebook Have in Common?

What do Trump, Google, and Facebook Have in Common?

This year, the Trump Administration declared the need for a national privacy law to supersede a patchwork of state laws. But, as the year comes to a close, and amidst the impeachment inquiry, time is running out. Meanwhile, Google plans to roll out encrypted web addresses, and Facebook stalls research into social media’s effect on democracy. Do these three seek privacy or power?
The Trump Administration, Google, and Facebook claim that privacy is a priority, and… well… we’re still waiting for the proof. Over the last year, the news has been awash with privacy scandals and data breaches. Every day we hear promises that privacy is a priority and that a national privacy law is coming, but so far, the evidence of action is lacking. This begs the question, are politicians and businesses using the guise of “privacy” to manipulate people? Let’s take a closer look.

Congress and the Trump Administration: National Privacy Law

Earlier this year, Congress and the Trump Administration agreed they wanted a new federal privacy law to protect individuals online. This rare occurrence was even supported and campaigned for by major tech firms (read our blog “What is your data worth” to learn more). However, despite months of talks, “a national privacy law is nowhere in sight [and] [t]he window to pass a law this year is now quickly closing.” (Source)

Disagreement over enforcement and state-level power are said to be holding back progress. Thus, while senators, including Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, insist they are working hard, there are no public results; and with the impeachment inquiry, it is possible we will not see any for some time (Source). This means that the White House will likely miss their self-appointed deadline of January 2020, when the CCPA goes into effect.

Originally, this plan was designed to avoid a patchwork of state-level legislature that can make it challenging for businesses to comply and weaken privacy care. It is not a simple process, and since “Congress has never set an overarching national standard for how most companies gather and use data.”, much work is needed to develop a framework to govern privacy on a national level (Source). However, there is evidence in Europe with GDPR, that a large governing structure can successfully hold organizations accountable to privacy standards. But how much longer will US residents need to wait?

Google Encryption: Privacy or Power

Google has been trying to get an edge above the competition for years by leveraging the mass troves of user data it acquires. Undoubtedly, their work has led to innovation that has redefined the way our world works, but our privacy has paid the price. Like never before, our data has become the new global currency, and Google has had a central part to play in the matter. 

Google has famously made privacy a priority and is currently working to enhance user privacy and security with encrypted web addresses.

Unencrypted web addresses are a major security risk, as they make it simple for malicious persons to intercept web traffic and use fake sites to gather data. However, in denying hackers this ability, power is given to companies like Google, who will be able to collect more user data than ever before. For the risk is “that control of encrypted systems sits with Google and its competitors.” (Source)

This is because encryption cuts out the middle layer of ISPs, and can change the mechanisms through which we access specific web pages. This could enable Google to become the centralized encryption DNS provider (Source).

Thus, while DoH is certainly a privacy and security upgrade, as opposed to the current DNS system, shifting from local middle layers to major browser enterprises centralizes user data, raising anti-competitive and child-protection concerns. Further, it diminishes law enforcement’s ability to blacklist dangerous sites and monitor those who visit them. This also opens new opportunities for hackers by reducing their ability to gather cybersecurity intelligence from malware activity that is an integral part of being able to fulfil government-mandated regulation (Source).

Nonetheless, this feature will roll out in a few weeks as the new default, despite the desire from those with DoH concerns to wait until learning more about the potential fallout.

Facebook and the Disinformation Fact Checkers

Over the last few years, Facebook has developed a terrible reputation as one of the least privacy-centric companies in the world. But it is accurate? After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, followed by endless cases of data privacy ethical debacles, Facebook stalls its “disinformation fact-checkers” on the grounds of privacy problems.

In April of 2018, Mark Zuckerburg announced that the company would develop machine learning to detect and manage misinformation on Facebook (Source). It then promised to share this information with non-profit researchers who would flag disinformation campaigns as part of an academic study on how social media is influencing democracies (Source). 

To ensure that the data being shared could not be traced back to individuals, Facebook applied differential privacy techniques.

However, upon sending this information, researchers complained data did not include enough information about the disinformation campaigns to allow them to derive meaningful results. Some even insisted that Facebook was going against the original agreement (Source). As a result, some of the people funding this initiative are considering backing out.

Initially, Facebook was given a deadline of September 30 to provide the full data sets, or the entire research grants program would be shut down. While they have begun offering more data in response, the full data sets have not been provided.

A spokesperson from Facebook says, “This is one of the largest sets of links ever to be created for academic research on this topic. We are working hard to deliver on additional demographic fields while safeguarding individual people’s privacy.” (Source). 

While Facebook may be limiting academic research on democracies, perhaps they are finally prioritizing privacy. And, at the end of the day with an ethical framework to move forward, through technological advancement and academic research, the impact of social media and democracy is still measurable without compromising privacy.

In the end, it is clear that privacy promises hold the potential to manipulate people into action. While the US government may not have a national privacy law anywhere in sight, the motives behind Google’s encrypted links may be questionable, and Facebook’s sudden prioritization of privacy may cut out democratic research, at least privacy is becoming a hot topic, and that holds promise for a privacy-centric future for the public.

Join our newsletter


What is your data worth?

What is your data worth?

How much compensation would you require to give a company complete access to your data? New studies demonstrate that prescribing a price tag to data may be the wrong approach to go about fines for noncompliance. Meanwhile, 51 CEOs write an open letter to Congress to request a federal consumer data privacy law and the Internet Associations joins them in their campaign. At the same time, Facebook is caught using Bluetooth in the background to track users and drive up profits.

Would you want your friends to know every facet of your digital footprint? How about your:

  • Location
  • Visited sites
  • Searched illnesses
  • Devices connected to the internet
  • Content read
  • Religious views
  • Political views
  • Photos
  • Purchasing habits


How about strangers? No? We didn’t think so. Then, the question remains, why are we sharing non-anonymized or improperly-anonymized copies of our personal information with companies? 

Today, many individuals are regularly sharing their data unconsciously with companies who collect it for profit. This data is used to monitor behaviour and profile you for targeted advertising that will make big data and tech companies, like Facebook, $30 per year in revenue per North American user (Source). Due to the profitability of data mining and the increasing number of nine-figure fines for data breaches, researchers have become fascinated by the economics of privacy. 

A 2019 study in the Journal of Consumer Policy questioned how users value their data. In the study, individuals stated they would only be willing to pay $5/month to protect personal data. While the low price tag may sound like privacy is a low priority, it is more likely that individuals’ believe their privacy should be a given, rather than something they have to pay to receive. This theory is corroborated by the fact that in reversing ownership in the question, and asking how much users would accept for full access to their data, there was a median response of $80/month (Source). 

While this study demonstrates a clear value placed on data from the majority, some individuals attributed a much higher cost and others said they would share data for free. Thus, the study concluded that “both willingness to pay and willingness to accept measures are highly unreliable guides to the welfare effects of retaining or giving up data privacy.” (Source)

In calling into question the ability of traditional measures of economic value to determine fines for data breaches and illegally harvesting data, other influential players in the data privacy research were asked how to go about holding corporations accountable to privacy standards. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner, stated that “injury to the public can be difficult to quantify in monetary terms in the case of privacy violations.” (Source

Rohit Chopra, a fellow FTC commissioner, also explained that current levels of monetary fines are not a strong deterrent for companies like Facebook, as their business model will remain untouched. As a result, the loss could be recouped through the further monetization of personal data. Consequently, both commissioners suggested that holding Facebook executives personally liable would be a stronger approach (Source).

If no price can equate to the value of personal data, and fines do not deter prolific companies like Facebook, should we continue asking what data is worth? Alessandro Acquisti, of Carnegie Mellon University, suggests an alternative method to look at data privacy is to view it as a human right. This model of thinking poses an interesting line of inquiry for both big data players and lawmakers, especially as federal data privacy legislature increases in popularity in the US (Source).

On September 10, 51 top CEOs, members of Business Roundtable, an industry lobbying organization, sent an open letter to Congress to request a US federal data privacy law that would supersede state-level privacy laws to simplify product design, compliance, and data management. Amongst the CEOs were the executives from Amazon, IBM, Salesforce, Johnson & Johnson, Walmart, and Visa.  

Throughout the letter, the giants accredited the patchwork of privacy regulations on a state-level for the disorder of consumer privacy in the United States. Today, companies face an increasing number of state and jurisdictional legislation that uphold varying standards to which organizations must comply. This, the companies argue, is inefficient to protect citizens, whereas a federal consumer data privacy law would provide reliable and consistent protections for Americans.

The letter also goes so far as to offer a proposed Framework for Consumer Privacy Legislation that the CEOs believe should be the base for future legislation. This framework states that data privacy law should…

  1. Champion Consumer Privacy and Promote Accountability.
  2. Foster Innovation and Competitiveness
  3. Harmonize Regulations
  4. Achieve Global Interoperability

While a unified and consistent method to hold American companies accountable could benefit users, many leading privacy advocates, and even some tech giants, have pointed out the immoral intentions of the CEOs. This is because they regarded the proposal as a method “to aggregate any privacy lawmaking under one roof, where lobby groups can water-down any meaningful user protections that may impact bottom lines.” (Source)

This pattern of a disingenuous push for a federal privacy law continued last week as the Internet Association (IA), a trade group funded by the largest tech companies worldwide, launched a campaign to request the same. Members are largely made up of companies who make a profit through the monetization of consumer data, including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Uber (Source).

In an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) article, this campaign was referred to as a “disingenuous ploy to undermine real progress on privacy being made around the country at the state level.” (Source) Should this occur, the federal law would supersede state laws, like The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that makes it illegal to collect biometric data without opt-in consent, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which will give state residents the right to access and opt-out of the sale of their personal data (Source). 

In the last quarter alone, the IA has spent close to USD $176,000 to try and weaken CCPA before it takes effect without success. As a result, now, in conjunction with Business Roundtable and Technet, they have called for a “weak national ‘privacy’ law that will preempt stronger state laws.” (Source)

One of the companies campaigning to develop a national standard is Facebook, who is caught up, yet again, in a data privacy scandal.

Apple’s new iOS 13 update looks to rework the smartphone operating system to prioritize privacy for users (Source). Recent “sneak peeks” showed that it will notify users of background activity from third-party apps surveillance infrastructure used to generate profit by profiling individuals outside their app-usage. The culprit highlighted, unsurprisingly, is Facebook, who has been caught using Bluetooth to track nearby users

While this may not seem like a big deal, in “[m]atching Bluetooth (and wif-fi) IDs that share physical location [Facebook could] supplement the social graph it gleans by data-mining user-to-user activity on its platform.” (Source) Through this, Facebook can track not just your location, but the nature of your relationship with others. In pairing Bluetooth-gathered interpersonal interactions with social tracking (likes, followers, posts, messaging), Facebook can escalate its ability to monitor and predict human behaviour.

While you can opt-out of location services on Facebook, this means you cannot use all aspects of the app. For instance, Facebook Dating requires location services to be enabled, a clause that takes away a user’s ability to make a meaningful choice about maintaining their privacy (Source).

In notifying users about apps using their data in the background, iOS 13 looks to bring back a measure of control to the user by making them aware of potential malicious actions or breaches of privacy.

In the wake of this, Facebook’s reaction has tested the bounds of reality. In an attempt to get out of the hot seat, they have rebranded the new iOS notifications as “reminders” (Source) and, according to Forbes, un-ironically informed users “that if they protect their privacy it might have an adverse effect on Facebook’s ability to target ads and monetize user data.” (Source) At the same time, Facebook PR has also written that “We’ll continue to make it easier for you to control how and when you share your location,” as if to take credit for Apple’s new product development (Source).

With such comments, it is clear that in the upcoming months, we will see how much individuals value their privacy and convenience. Between the debate over the value of data, who should govern consumer privacy rights, and another privacy breach by Facebook, the relevance of the data privacy conversation is evident. To stay up to date, sign up for our monthly newsletter and keep an eye out for our weekly blogs on privacy news.

Join our newsletter


Rewarded for sharing your data? Sign me up!

Rewarded for sharing your data? Sign me up!

Companies now starting to pay users for their data, in efforts to be more ethical. Large Bluetooth security flaw detected proving potentially harmful to millions. Blockchain’s future looking bright as privacy-preserving technology booms. Canadian federal elections being ‘watched’ for their history of ‘watching’ public.

Rewarded for sharing your data? Sign me up!

Drop Technologies has secured USD$44 million in investments towards growing a technology-based alternative towards traditional customer loyalty programs. With over three million users signed up already, as well as 300 brands on its platform, such as Expedia and Postmates, the company is headed in the right direction. 

Given that Facebook and other tech giants are monetizing data without user permission, getting paid for it doesn’t seem like a bad idea after all. “I’m a Facebook user and an Instagram user, and these guys are just monetizing my data left and right, without much transparency,” said Onsi Sawiris, a managing partner at New York’s HOF Capital.” At least if I’m signing up for Drop, I know that if they’re using my data I will get something in return, and it’s very clear” (Source).

This alternative to rewards programs basically tracks your spending with all of their 300+ brands, and lets you earn points that you can spend at certain companies such as Starbucks of Uber Eats. If it’s an alternative to credit card rewards, it will be beneficial to consumers looking for extra savings on their purchases. So don’t drop it till you try it!

Bluetooth proving to be a potential data breach vulnerability 

Researchers have discovered a flaw that leaves millions of Bluetooth users vulnerable to data breaches. This flaw enables attackers to interfere while two users are trying to connect without being detected, as long as they’re within a certain range. From music to conversations, to data entered through a Bluetooth device, anything could be at risk. “Upon checking more than 14 Bluetooth chips from popular manufacturers such as Qualcomm, Apple, and Intel, researchers discovered that all the tested devices are vulnerable to attacks” (Source). 

Fortunately, some companies such as Apple and Intel have already implemented security upgrades on their devices. Users are also advised to keep their security, software, and firmware updated at all times. 

Get ready for blockchain advancements like never before

For the past decade, blockchain has been used to build an ecosystem where cryptocurrencies and peer-to-peer transactions are just a few of the many use cases. (Source).

Traditionally, data is shared across centralized networks, leaving systems vulnerable to attacks. However, with decentralization as an added security measure to blockchain, the threat of a single point of failure across a distributed network is eradicated. 

As more and more companies turn to blockchain to gain the benefits of more efficient data sharing and easier data transfers, privacy is overlooked.

In most public blockchains today, transactions are visible to all nodes of a network. Naturally, of course, the issue of privacy is raised due to the sensitive nature of the data, and this transparency comes at a cost. With digital transformation happening all around us, privacy protection cannot be ignored.

To address privacy, many blockchain companies are employing privacy-preserving mechanisms on their infrastructures, from zero-knowledge proofs to encryption algorithms such as Multi-Party Computation (MPC). These mechanisms encrypt data as it’s shared and only reveal the specific elements needed for a specific task (Source).

Costs efficiencies and a better understanding of consumer needs are just a few of the advantages of privacy-preserving mechanisms being introduced. As data and privacy go hand in hand in the future, equitability and trust will be our key to unlock new possibilities that enhance life as we know it (Source).

Upcoming Canadian elections could turn into surveillance problem

Once again, the Canadian federal elections are raising concerns about interference and disruption through the misuse of personal data. In the past, political parties have been known to use their power to influence populations who are not aware of how their data is being used. 

Since data has played a major role in elections, this could become a surveillance issue because experts who study surveillance say that harnessing data has been the key to electoral success, in past elections. “Politicians the world over now believe they can win elections if they just have better, more refined and more accurate data on the electorate” (Source).

A related issue is a lack of transparency between voters and electoral candidates. “There is a divide between how little is publicly known about what actually goes on in platform businesses that create online networks, like Facebook or Twitter, and what supporters of proper democratic practices argue should be known” (Source).

The officials of this upcoming election should be paying close attention to the public’s personal data and how it is being used.

Join our newsletter


A deep dive into Facebook’s privacy today

A deep dive into Facebook’s privacy today

This week we take an in-depth look into what privacy looks like for Facebook. First, we will explore what user data Facebook is collecting. Then, we will look at how Facebook is invading users’ privacy… again. Finally, we will discuss the new privacy scam directed at Facebook.

See and control what Facebook collects from you

Last year, Facebook announced their upcoming release of a tool to ‘clear history’ and delete data that third-party websites and apps share with the social media giant. Fast-forward to today, the company has kept its word and has released the tool in Ireland, South Korea, and Spain. 

The tool, known as ‘Off-Facebook Activity’, allows you to see and control what information has been collected about you by apps and websites and sent to Facebook. It will show you information about your online activities, the questions you search on Google and your online shopping history. However, while it has the option to disconnect the data, it cannot delete it.

If you choose to clear your activity, Facebook will simply remove your identifying information from the data and unlink it to your account. It will not delete the data (Source).

This is the first step in the right direction, as this is the first time Facebook has allowed users to control or even see this information.

Facebook’s voice transcripts more invasive

Facebook has been transcribing users’ audio clips for quality control and to improve the accuracy of their services. Unlike Alexa or Google Home workers listening to user recordings, Facebook’s audio does not come from users giving smart assistants commands but from human-to-human communication. Bloomberg reported that Facebook contractors were kept in the dark with regards to where the audio came from and why these audio clips needed to be transcribed. 

While Google, Apple, and Facebook have temporarily suspended human audio reviews, Amazon has chosen to let its users opt-out (Source).

Another Facebook privacy scam, and this time it’s not Facebook’s fault

People have been reposting and resharing a viral message, that explicitly notifies Facebook of their rights as users.

“Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photos. Don’t forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you. Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from today Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook’s privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute. NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES.”

It is not real, it is a scam, and there are several reasons why:

1. The message is written poorly with no attention to capitalization and grammar.

2. There is no way you can end up in court by using social media.

3. Facebook does not own your content, there are several discrepancies. 

4. Posting a statement on your Facebook timeline that is contrary to Facebook’s privacy terms has no legal effect nor does it change Facebook’s privacy policies (Source).

However, if you are still wary about your privacy being at risk, take some measures to be safer. Change your privacy controls. Don’t post content that you don’t want being shared. Or, simply cancel your account for the best protection guaranteed. 

 

Join our newsletter