Navigation

Archive | Google

Turning friends into threats

By on January 6, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Protection, Data Retention, Facebook, Google, Privacy, surveillance

Some weeks ago there was some attention and upset reactions about the Chinese concept of “Sesame Credits”. It’s all about what you say, read, buy and do on the Internet. Your credit status then might decide if you can get e.g. a bank loan or permission to travel abroad.

Nasty indeed. But what make the whole thing really upsetting is that your credit status also will be affected by what your friends do online. This really is a diabolic tool for “social control”. (Video»)

It is easy to believe that it is only those communists in China and such anti-democratic regimes that could apply a system like this.

But, actually, most western democracies can easily do the same thing with data retention. This is a perfect tool for building sociograms. A sociogram is a map showing who is connected to who when it comes to the internet and telecommunications. How the authorities look at you can be determined by the friends you have (and by what friends they have).

So, even if you have “nothing to hide” — you still certainly do have something to fear.

And it’s not just about data retention. The same (or even more detailed) information is collected by Facebook and Google. It most certinly can be obtained by the authorities — and is probably also for sale out there. It would be very strange if various intelligence agencies don’t already have access to this information.

In this way, Big Brotherism is breaking down trust between people in our societies. And that is a very bad thing.

/ HAX

0

EU to make linking illegal?

By on November 9, 2015 in Copyright, Google, Intellectual Property, Internet, WWW

The EU Commission is working on a new and updated legal framework for copyright. A draft has been leaked — and it raises some serious questions about what the EC is up to.

Most notably it covers “ancillary copyright”, a term used when it comes to Internet linking in relation to copyright.

From the beginning, this was about German and Spanish newspapers wanting Google to pay for linking to their material. This idea went down in flames, as Google stopped linking — and the publishers had to beg them to start linking again.

Now it seems that the EC is taking a new and broader approach to this issue.

The fear is that unless you have explicit permission to do so in every single case, linking to copyright-protected material (articles, pictures, video, sound) will become illegal.

This would be a fatal blow to the entire concept of a world wide web. Linking is the very neuronic system of the Internet. Having to ask for permission or seek among different sorts of licenses before you link could be extremely time-consuming and bureaucratic. People would rather refrain from linking all together.

One (of many) unintended consequences would be hampering the open, democratic debate online.

And old style media wouldn’t gain anything from it. Opposite, they would lose readers and clicks. (Like experience from Germany and Spain clearly demonstrate.)

The reasonable standpoint is that if you put something on the Internet, others should be allowed to link to it.

But that might not be the way the EC sees it.

/ HAX

• Ancillary Copyright 2.0: The European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink »
• Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda: EU Preparing ‘Frontal Attack On The Hyperlink’ »
• Leaked Draft Reveals EU Anti-Piracy Enforcement Plan »

0

EU pairing up with US online companies to censor the Internet

By on October 26, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Business, Censorship, EU, Facebook, Google, Internet

Then we have this one…

“In August 2015, the European Commission confirmed to EDRi that it’s preparing to partner with US online companies to set up an ‘EU Internet Forum’ which apparently includes discussing the monitoring and censorship of communications in Europe. Participants of this Forum include Facebook, Google/YouTube, Ask.fm, Microsoft and Twitter. The first meeting was held on 24 July 2015 and focused on ‘reducing accessibility to terrorist content’.”

Read more at EDRi: EU Commission: IT companies to fix “terrorist use of the Internet” »

0

Privacy policies invalid when companies go bust?

By on September 15, 2015 in Data Protection, Facebook, Google, Privacy

Washington Post has this interesting story: Bankrupt RadioShack wants to sell off user data. But the bigger risk is if a Facebook or Google goes bust. »

The headline speaks for itself. And apparently, also companies like Google and Facebook have some sort of open-ended privacy policies.

In its privacy policy, Google says that if the company is “involved in a merger, acquisition or asset sale” it would continue to safeguard the confidentiality of its users. Users would be notified before their personal information ends up in new hands, the policy says.

Facebook’s data policy is a little more open-ended: “If the ownership or control of all or part of our Services or their assets changes, we may transfer your information to the new owner.”

The difference is not if personal data might change hands, but if you are going to be told about it.

This ought to be something for the EU to tackle in its new data protection package.

0

Industry wants NSA access to European personal data

By on August 27, 2015 in Big Brother, Data Protection, EU, Google, NSA & Snowden

The EU is in the process of modernising data protection — in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

One key point is that European personal data, stored in Europe should be protected under European law. Companies should be able to deny requests for personal data from non-member countries. Politico.eu explains…

A small section, Article 43a, says companies should not always comply with requests from courts, tribunals and administrative authorities in non-EU countries for the personal data of Europeans. The only exceptions would be under law enforcement treaties or relevant agreements between those countries and the EU, or individual European countries.

This ought to be a no-brainer. But it has turned out to be highly controversial. One reason might be that US intelligence and law enforcement would like to have access to as much as possible. (And sadly they probably will, under other agreements and treaties. But it shouldn’t be the default mode.)

This is the position of the European Parliament. However, EU member states in the European Council are not at all happy with this article. Apparently, their allegiance does not lie with the citizens and European business.

And now the Industry Coalition for Data Protection (ICDP) composed of Big Data, IT- and telecoms multinationals have stepped in to kill article 43a.

The coalition sent a letter this week to Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová, parliamentary rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, and the Luxembourg presidency of the Council of the EU — the key representatives of the three institutions that are currently negotiating the regulation’s text.

The letter from ICDP said that adopting a “unilateral approach” would create deliberate conflicts of law and severely undermine “both the principles of reciprocity in diplomatic relations as well as the credibility of the EU data protection reform.”

Apparently, these companies are more concerned about their relations with US authorities than data protection.

Politico.eu: Industry issues plea over data reform »

/ HAX

0

Dear Google…

By on May 2, 2015 in Cryptography, Google, Internet, Privacy

I appreciate Googles concerns when it comes to our online security. However, I think we might have a case of unintended consequences.

If you log on to your Google services from a new (or unknown) piece of hardware or from a new place, Google seems to block this attempt — often demanding that you change your password. I can see the logic behind that.

But if this happens often (and for some it does) it will lower the quality of the chosen new password. Having to figure out a new password/phrase (that you can remember) on the go simply doesn’t give you time to consider a strong and impregnable one.

Just sayin’.

/ HAX

0

Google, where the truth lies?

By on March 2, 2015 in Big Brother, Freedom of Speech, Google

Apparently Google is about to make changes to its search engine. The New Scientist reports…

“A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page.”

It will be very interesting to see what is to be considered as the truth.

There are areas where we might not have reached the final conclusion on what is true, where we need additional information to fully understand what is going on – or where “common knowledge” simply is wrong. Suddenly we are moving into the realm of what we don’t know that we don’t know…

And what about disputed areas — such as war on drugs versus legalisation and harm reduction? Who will decide what is true? On what grounds?

If the “truth” is to be decided from what the majority believes – Google might become a truly conservative and reactionary force.

Tread carefully. Don’t be evil.

/ HAX

0

Free speech – a matter of terms and conditions?

By on February 25, 2015 in Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Google

This week we learned that Google is banning sexually explicit content from its blogging platform, Blogger. As a private company Google can have any rules, terms and conditions they want for their services. And they should and must have that right. Even so, this is problematic.

My Swedish blog is on Blogger. And I must ask myself — if Google introduce rules against sex and nudity, what will come next? Will it be OK to criticise or mock religion? Will it be OK to argue for legalisation of certain drugs? Will it be OK to use the blog to make information from “illegal” whistleblowers public?

In Bloggers terms and conditions Google states that you cannot blog on certain topics / in certain ways. Among other things they mention hate speech (a tricky definition, depending on who you ask), crude content (what about proof of war crimes?), copyright infringements (often used to curb inconvenient information) and illegal activities (a tricky one when governments are trying to keep their dirty little secrets under wraps by going after the messenger).

This is not just about Blogger / Google. Similar T&C can be found at most social networks, in agreements with internet service providers and others. This is problematic in several ways…

  • When a platform is dominant (like Google, Facebook and Twitter) their corporate policy against certain content can lead to a de facto censorship –as banned information will have difficulties reaching a wide audience by other channels.
  • It gets really scary when private companies value their relations with the government so high that they are willing to assist in going after people that officials have difficulties in blocking by legal means. (E.g. when Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Bank of America decided to give the US government a hand in cutting the funding to Wikileaks.)
  • As a user, I’m uncomfortable with having moral (and other) standards decided for me by corporate lawyers and board members personal values and hang-ups. This will give rise to self-censorship and it will inhibit creativity. And such standard may often be overly anxious and uptight as the companies tries to please everybody.

But I’m not sure what to do about this. Saying that social net platforms should accept everything that’s legal doesn’t work — as this will vary from country to country and as many jurisdictions have absurd bans on free speech. And as a blogger your purpose often is to dispute what is deemed illegal.

In the words of HL Mencken…

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Another idea might be to start alternatives to Facebook, Google & Co. A huge project, for sure. Without any guarantee for success. I fear most people simply don’t care.

This blog is a privately hosted WordPress blog, which is a solution when it comes to blogging. But the threat against free speech online goes far beyond just blogging.

This is a discussion to be continued.

On a final note: It’s puzzling that Google bans sexually explicit content from Blogger — when a simple Google picture search on such matters will produce the most esoteric results.

/ HAX

Read more: Engadget — Google’s banning sexually explicit content from its blogging platform »

1

Google, Wikileaks and the U.S. Government

By on January 26, 2015 in Big Brother, Google, US, Wikileaks

The Independent (UK) reports…

Google handed over emails and data belonging to WikiLeaks and was unable to tell the group that it had done so for three years. (…)

The data requests are thought to be related to an ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks, launched in 2010. It is related to the publication of hundreds of thousands of US government secrets tand cables that were provided by Chelsea Manning.

Link: Google secretly handed over WikiLeaks emails and personal data to US government »

0