Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Your Facebook Data Will Never Be Safe
Unless you've been locked into a backyard bunker waiting for President Trump to start a nuclear war, you know that Facebook is having some rather serious problems with the confidentiality of its users' data. Data for some 50 million users somehow wound up in the hands of a UK data analysis firm called Cambridge Analytica, which then reportedly used it to assist Donald Trump get elected President of the United States. Needless to say, the 50 or so million users weren't aware this happened. Government investigations have started. A search warrant was executed at Cambridge Analytica and calls have been made for Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, to testify before Congress. But, no matter what happens--Facebook takes more protective measures, government regulation increases, people are tossed in jail--your Facebook data will never be safe.
According to an apocryphal story, bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks and replied, "Because that's where the money is." Facebook's problem is it is where the data is. Facebook has the best data on the Internet. It insists on users using their true identities, and it operates a social forum, where it learns who is in a user's social circles, what they think, what they like, what they do, what they want, what they own, where they live, where they work, where they play, with whom they play, what illness and injuries they have, what medications they take, what treatments they get, what music they like, what television and video entertainment they like, where they go on vacation and with whom, what they eat, where they eat, who they like, who they dislike, who they date, who they want to date, who they marry, who they divorce, maybe even who they cheat on their spouses with, how they vote, who they vote for, why they vote a particular way, what their political views are, what their cultural values are, what their religious views are, where they worship, what prejudices and biases they have, what ethnic and racial groups they like or dislike, how they feel about gays, lesbians, transgender people or anyone else, how they feel about this sexual activity or that, etc., etc., etc., so on and so forth. In other words, Facebook knows AN AWFUL LOT about its users, more than any other website or Internet company.
Facebook is where the data is--the absolutely best data. That's why hackers, unscrupulous foreign governments, shady political operators, and all manner of scoundrels and riff raff will continue to swarm around Facebook like a pack of hyenas, snatching whatever data they can get. As we repeatedly learn just about every week, no repository of data is safe. Neither governments, military or intelligence organizations, the most sophisticated Internet companies, nor anyone else can keep data safe. Everyone who has valuable data has been hacked or probably will be hacked some day. The architecture of the Internet is open, not closed, and true security is simply impossible. Because Facebook has the crown jewels when it comes to data, the wolves will perennially attack and hack. And even as Facebook puts up more defenses, the jackals will relentlessly prowl and find new ways to slip through and feed.
Don't be naive when Facebook tells you they'll find ways to fix the problem. They've been hoodwinked before, and, being human, they'll be hoodwinked again. If you're on Facebook, you have a choice to make--have no expectation of privacy at all, or get the hell off of Facebook.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Uber Shows Us Why Privacy Matters
It appears that a senior vice president at Uber, the online taxi service, suggested that the company ought to investigate journalists who offend the company. In particular, Emil Michael, the SVP in question, seems to have directed his remarks at a BuzzFeed reporter named Sarah Lacy, who evidently has been critical of the company.
Although Uber has repudiated Michael's remarks and pledged not to investigate journalists, let's think hypothetically about what a nasty corporation might do in order to dig up dirt on an individual. There is the company's own database. In the case of an online taxi service, that would include name, credit card information, and perhaps a lot of addresses. Some you might not want your significant other to know about if you've been less than a paragon of fidelity. Others you might not want your employer to know about if you've been interviewing discreetly for a new job. Of course, there could be the address of the only abortion clinic in your city or a seedy hotel where the only things you could get are services from sex workers or illegal drugs.
In addition, businesses corporations have access to commercial databases created by shadowy companies that vacuum up everything about you they can find on the Internet and sell it for a fee. These databases might well include archived pages from social networking and other sites that you thought you deleted years ago (shiploads of stuff on the Internet have been archived, and a deletion on the active website doesn't necessarily mean all the archived stuff is gone). Businesses can also hire snoops to snoop around online and otherwise. They can get the name of the driver from the online taxi service, interview him, and find out that you were getting mighty friendly with someone in the back seat when you told your spouse you were going alone to a client dinner. Or they can find out the name of the restaurant where you were taken, and interview the bartender to learn there was someone waiting for you who whisked you away after spending five minutes at the bar.
No one is perfect. For many, their imperfections can be uncovered online or through information available online. Private interests can be bad. Some can be evil. There are fewer legal constraints on private interests digging up dirt online than there are on the government. It's creepy to think that NSA or some other government agency might be sneaking peaks at our e-mail accounts. But, ultimately, the government is subject to a variety of constraints that, at least sometimes, can be invoked. A business corporation or other private interest that wants to do evil is much harder to rein in because of the paucity of rules.
Privacy laws are like locks on doors. You lock your doors to keep undesired people out of the privacy of your home. Privacy rules keep undesired people out of the privacy of your data. Everyone wants a nonpublic place where they aren't subject to prying eyes. Even the Uber SVP, Emil Michael, who reportedly claims that his inflammatory remarks were meant to be off the record. (See http://www.cnbc.com/id/102199538). From the vantage point of his petard, Michael acknowledges the desirability of privacy.
It's unlikely Congress will do anything useful in the foreseeable future. But if it wanted to shock us with a pleasant surprise, it could enact a strong set of privacy rules for online data and the use of online data. After all, privacy matters.
Although Uber has repudiated Michael's remarks and pledged not to investigate journalists, let's think hypothetically about what a nasty corporation might do in order to dig up dirt on an individual. There is the company's own database. In the case of an online taxi service, that would include name, credit card information, and perhaps a lot of addresses. Some you might not want your significant other to know about if you've been less than a paragon of fidelity. Others you might not want your employer to know about if you've been interviewing discreetly for a new job. Of course, there could be the address of the only abortion clinic in your city or a seedy hotel where the only things you could get are services from sex workers or illegal drugs.
In addition, businesses corporations have access to commercial databases created by shadowy companies that vacuum up everything about you they can find on the Internet and sell it for a fee. These databases might well include archived pages from social networking and other sites that you thought you deleted years ago (shiploads of stuff on the Internet have been archived, and a deletion on the active website doesn't necessarily mean all the archived stuff is gone). Businesses can also hire snoops to snoop around online and otherwise. They can get the name of the driver from the online taxi service, interview him, and find out that you were getting mighty friendly with someone in the back seat when you told your spouse you were going alone to a client dinner. Or they can find out the name of the restaurant where you were taken, and interview the bartender to learn there was someone waiting for you who whisked you away after spending five minutes at the bar.
No one is perfect. For many, their imperfections can be uncovered online or through information available online. Private interests can be bad. Some can be evil. There are fewer legal constraints on private interests digging up dirt online than there are on the government. It's creepy to think that NSA or some other government agency might be sneaking peaks at our e-mail accounts. But, ultimately, the government is subject to a variety of constraints that, at least sometimes, can be invoked. A business corporation or other private interest that wants to do evil is much harder to rein in because of the paucity of rules.
Privacy laws are like locks on doors. You lock your doors to keep undesired people out of the privacy of your home. Privacy rules keep undesired people out of the privacy of your data. Everyone wants a nonpublic place where they aren't subject to prying eyes. Even the Uber SVP, Emil Michael, who reportedly claims that his inflammatory remarks were meant to be off the record. (See http://www.cnbc.com/id/102199538). From the vantage point of his petard, Michael acknowledges the desirability of privacy.
It's unlikely Congress will do anything useful in the foreseeable future. But if it wanted to shock us with a pleasant surprise, it could enact a strong set of privacy rules for online data and the use of online data. After all, privacy matters.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
The WhatsApp Deal: Did Zuckerberg Just Blink?
WhatsApp is the antithesis of Facebook. It doesn't collect personal information. Messages aren't stored in WhatsApp's servers. There are no ads on WhatsApp. As a messaging service, there's nothing on WhatsApp for strangers (or parents) to find via search engines. It offers the one thing that's almost impossible to obtain on the Internet: privacy. No wonder it's growing by a million users a day, many of them in the young adult cohort coveted by commercial websites.
It's unclear what Mark Zuckerberg hopes to achieve by having Facebook buy WhatsApp. If he engrafts WhatsApp onto Facebook, or makes it semi-clone of Facebook (i.e., has it run ads), it will surely lose much of the privacy it offers. Facebook's business model, after all, is to vacuum up as much personal information as possible in order to cram advertising into users' faces. But that could drain away much of WhatsApp's attractiveness to its current user base, and they could easily flee to any of a number of competitors offering private communications.
If Zuckerberg keeps WhatsApp independent, he'll have to find some way of generating revenue--a shipload of it, since Facebook is paying $19 billion for WhatsApp and the only justification for such a Brobdingnagian price would be freight cars full of revenue. But you can't charge users much for instant messaging services (the phone companies tried that with text messaging and users are moving away from them). So there is a big question about what kind of rabbit Zuckerberg will pull out of the hat as a business strategy for WhatsApp.
One thing that seems apparent is that he's blinked. Zuckerberg evidently has come to realize that Facebook isn't going to be the platform for all users all the time. He's jumping onto one of the new, hot things on the Internet. Diversifying Facebook's corporate profile may be a prudent move. But the company now has two conflicting business models under its corporate roof, and it will have to sort out how to handle these conflicts. History does not suggest success is assured by any means. Microsoft entered various lines of business that were potential threats to its basic MS-DOS/Windows business--search engines, portals, mobile software, etc. It didn't managed them very well, because boosting a newer technology could mean undermining its cash cow. Newer, nimbler competitors, unburdened by these conflicts, ran circles around Microsoft. Facebook is one of them. But now it has taken in-house a conflict between the old (yes, Facebook is getting old) and the new on the Internet. How Facebook handles that conflict could dictate the future arc of its growth.
It's unclear what Mark Zuckerberg hopes to achieve by having Facebook buy WhatsApp. If he engrafts WhatsApp onto Facebook, or makes it semi-clone of Facebook (i.e., has it run ads), it will surely lose much of the privacy it offers. Facebook's business model, after all, is to vacuum up as much personal information as possible in order to cram advertising into users' faces. But that could drain away much of WhatsApp's attractiveness to its current user base, and they could easily flee to any of a number of competitors offering private communications.
If Zuckerberg keeps WhatsApp independent, he'll have to find some way of generating revenue--a shipload of it, since Facebook is paying $19 billion for WhatsApp and the only justification for such a Brobdingnagian price would be freight cars full of revenue. But you can't charge users much for instant messaging services (the phone companies tried that with text messaging and users are moving away from them). So there is a big question about what kind of rabbit Zuckerberg will pull out of the hat as a business strategy for WhatsApp.
One thing that seems apparent is that he's blinked. Zuckerberg evidently has come to realize that Facebook isn't going to be the platform for all users all the time. He's jumping onto one of the new, hot things on the Internet. Diversifying Facebook's corporate profile may be a prudent move. But the company now has two conflicting business models under its corporate roof, and it will have to sort out how to handle these conflicts. History does not suggest success is assured by any means. Microsoft entered various lines of business that were potential threats to its basic MS-DOS/Windows business--search engines, portals, mobile software, etc. It didn't managed them very well, because boosting a newer technology could mean undermining its cash cow. Newer, nimbler competitors, unburdened by these conflicts, ran circles around Microsoft. Facebook is one of them. But now it has taken in-house a conflict between the old (yes, Facebook is getting old) and the new on the Internet. How Facebook handles that conflict could dictate the future arc of its growth.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
How to Improve NSA Surveillance
Despite the uproar, there's little chance of changing the scope and extent of NSA surveillance of Americans. No politician wants to be blamed if there's another Boston Marathon-type bombing. So they'll hide behind the usual gridlock and do nothing.
That being the case, we might as well make the most of NSA's surveillance. After all, it's being done on the taxpayer's dime, and taxpayers ought to get their money's worth. Here are some ways NSA can make 'round the clock surveillance a better experience for all of us.
Package Delivery. Since NSA knows where you are at all times, it could run a great delivery service. Let's say you're on the road and forgot to bring your cellphone recharger. An NSA courier could be dispatched with a new recharger in a flash. And they'd want to make this delivery. After all, it's harder to keep track of you if your cell phone battery is dead.
And if you're traveling with a small child and need is a package of disposable diapers and some wipes, NSA could deliver them for a modest fee, even to the highway rest stop where you discovered what you forgot to pack. This would not only please many a distressed parental taxpayer, it would also give NSA a stream of fee revenue that could supplement its multi-billion dollar budget.
Chatline. There are many lonely people, and NSA may be among the few that care to listen in on their phone calls. Perhaps NSA could operate chatlines, to help the lonely find companionship. Maybe NSA will get lucky and a frustrated terrorist will unburden himself on a chatline, confessing to having fantasies about pressure cookers.
Dating Service. If you're single, NSA already knows how bad your personal life is. They know everything about you--and everyone else. Since they know so much, they might as well operate a dating service. With all that they know, they should be able to find the perfect match for you in only three nanoseconds of processing time on their massive supercomputers.
Grocery Shopping. NSA could doing your grocery shopping and bill your bank account, all without you having to do more than tell them your grocery list. You can pick up the phone and say what you need. No need to dial because NSA's monitors will pick up your request anyway, and they can send one of their personnel to the supermarket. Billing your bank account will be a breeze, since they already know the number and track everything that goes on in it. Indeed, there's no reason for NSA to stop with groceries. It could keep you well-stocked with beer and wine, pick up and return your dry cleaning, and arrange for pizza to be delivered in time for dinner. You'd have to pay fees for these services, but think of the convenience.
Concierge Services. There's more. NSA could offer the full range of concierge services. They could get you movie tickets, make dinner reservations, call cabs, send personnel out to be your personal shopper, and so on. They already monitor your credit card and banking activity, so they know what movies you see, where you have dinner, and what your personal shopping consists of. Might as well make the situation a win-win by offering citizens some conveniences now available mostly to the 1%.
Rebranding NSA. NSA has an image problem. It's portrayed by its detractors as an intrusive ogre that laughs derisively while steam rolling over civil liberties. A common strategy in the business world for such a problem is to rebrand oneself. NSA could leverage its massive knowledge of every intimate detail of your life by offering services like those described above, and change its name to, say, NSA Deluxe Lifestyle Services. After all, nothing pleases citizens more than seeing government work for them.
That being the case, we might as well make the most of NSA's surveillance. After all, it's being done on the taxpayer's dime, and taxpayers ought to get their money's worth. Here are some ways NSA can make 'round the clock surveillance a better experience for all of us.
Package Delivery. Since NSA knows where you are at all times, it could run a great delivery service. Let's say you're on the road and forgot to bring your cellphone recharger. An NSA courier could be dispatched with a new recharger in a flash. And they'd want to make this delivery. After all, it's harder to keep track of you if your cell phone battery is dead.
And if you're traveling with a small child and need is a package of disposable diapers and some wipes, NSA could deliver them for a modest fee, even to the highway rest stop where you discovered what you forgot to pack. This would not only please many a distressed parental taxpayer, it would also give NSA a stream of fee revenue that could supplement its multi-billion dollar budget.
Chatline. There are many lonely people, and NSA may be among the few that care to listen in on their phone calls. Perhaps NSA could operate chatlines, to help the lonely find companionship. Maybe NSA will get lucky and a frustrated terrorist will unburden himself on a chatline, confessing to having fantasies about pressure cookers.
Dating Service. If you're single, NSA already knows how bad your personal life is. They know everything about you--and everyone else. Since they know so much, they might as well operate a dating service. With all that they know, they should be able to find the perfect match for you in only three nanoseconds of processing time on their massive supercomputers.
Grocery Shopping. NSA could doing your grocery shopping and bill your bank account, all without you having to do more than tell them your grocery list. You can pick up the phone and say what you need. No need to dial because NSA's monitors will pick up your request anyway, and they can send one of their personnel to the supermarket. Billing your bank account will be a breeze, since they already know the number and track everything that goes on in it. Indeed, there's no reason for NSA to stop with groceries. It could keep you well-stocked with beer and wine, pick up and return your dry cleaning, and arrange for pizza to be delivered in time for dinner. You'd have to pay fees for these services, but think of the convenience.
Concierge Services. There's more. NSA could offer the full range of concierge services. They could get you movie tickets, make dinner reservations, call cabs, send personnel out to be your personal shopper, and so on. They already monitor your credit card and banking activity, so they know what movies you see, where you have dinner, and what your personal shopping consists of. Might as well make the situation a win-win by offering citizens some conveniences now available mostly to the 1%.
Rebranding NSA. NSA has an image problem. It's portrayed by its detractors as an intrusive ogre that laughs derisively while steam rolling over civil liberties. A common strategy in the business world for such a problem is to rebrand oneself. NSA could leverage its massive knowledge of every intimate detail of your life by offering services like those described above, and change its name to, say, NSA Deluxe Lifestyle Services. After all, nothing pleases citizens more than seeing government work for them.
Monday, January 17, 2011
A Key to Facebook's Valuation
Recent press reports indicate that Facebook may go public in a year or so. Its recently reported private placement deal with Goldman Sachs supposedly put a $50 billion valuation on Facebook. Many think this is an optimistic number. Conventional measures of value are hard to apply to Facebook because it doesn't publicly disclose its finances. Uncertainties about its business model add to the problem. One wild card is the continued evolution of online privacy policies.
In many respects, online privacy is an oxymoron. Every day brings news of yet more security breakdowns and thefts of personal information. There doesn't seem to be a website that can't be hacked into, one way or another.
But online crime isn't the most important factor affecting online privacy. The commercialization of the Internet is far more significant. Businesses that want to sell your personal information will do much more to reduce online privacy than pimply kids eating junk food in front of computer screens.
Banks are starting to place targeted ads in your online statements. If your bank account shows, say, several recent debit card charges for fast food breakfasts, you may be offered a discount on your next Egg McMuffin. Some bank customers may like the idea of getting a discount while they review their account activity. Others will be creeped out by the idea that the most confidential financial information they have is being mined for the further profitability of purveyors of salt, sugar and fat. Many customers would be outraged at the possibility that insurance companies might pay to know about their slovenly eating habits and charge them higher life, health or disability insurance premiums. Actual insurance company access to your bank account hasn't been reported in the news, but don't think insurers--and the websites that are collecting your personal information--aren't pondering the possibility.
Banks have a lot of ways to make money, yet they are trying to profit from selling your personal information. Think of the pressures on Facebook, which has far fewer potential revenue streams than a bank. The most valuable thing Facebook has is the personal information it gathers about its members. If it can't find a way to monetize that data, its future could be difficult.
The FTC is proposing guidelines about online privacy. Members of Congress are getting interested in the issue and may offer legislation. One way or another, the law in this area will evolve and soon. When it does, Facebook's stock market value could rise or fall, depending on what rules are imposed. Indeed, since the monetization of personal information is likely to be Facebook's biggest potential revenue stream, online privacy laws could be crucial to determining the company's valuation.
In many respects, online privacy is an oxymoron. Every day brings news of yet more security breakdowns and thefts of personal information. There doesn't seem to be a website that can't be hacked into, one way or another.
But online crime isn't the most important factor affecting online privacy. The commercialization of the Internet is far more significant. Businesses that want to sell your personal information will do much more to reduce online privacy than pimply kids eating junk food in front of computer screens.
Banks are starting to place targeted ads in your online statements. If your bank account shows, say, several recent debit card charges for fast food breakfasts, you may be offered a discount on your next Egg McMuffin. Some bank customers may like the idea of getting a discount while they review their account activity. Others will be creeped out by the idea that the most confidential financial information they have is being mined for the further profitability of purveyors of salt, sugar and fat. Many customers would be outraged at the possibility that insurance companies might pay to know about their slovenly eating habits and charge them higher life, health or disability insurance premiums. Actual insurance company access to your bank account hasn't been reported in the news, but don't think insurers--and the websites that are collecting your personal information--aren't pondering the possibility.
Banks have a lot of ways to make money, yet they are trying to profit from selling your personal information. Think of the pressures on Facebook, which has far fewer potential revenue streams than a bank. The most valuable thing Facebook has is the personal information it gathers about its members. If it can't find a way to monetize that data, its future could be difficult.
The FTC is proposing guidelines about online privacy. Members of Congress are getting interested in the issue and may offer legislation. One way or another, the law in this area will evolve and soon. When it does, Facebook's stock market value could rise or fall, depending on what rules are imposed. Indeed, since the monetization of personal information is likely to be Facebook's biggest potential revenue stream, online privacy laws could be crucial to determining the company's valuation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
