mfioretti: privacy* + google*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

41 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Nel 2007 Google ha acquisito DoubleClick, società che raccoglieva dati di navigazione web, assicurando che mai avrebbe incrociato tali risultati con le informazioni personali possedute grazie all'utilizzo dei propri servizi. Tuttavia, a distanza di quasi 10 anni ha aggiornato le proprie condizioni per l'uso dell'account Google, informando che adesso avrà la possibilità di effettuare tale incrocio. Nel documento si legge adesso: "A seconda delle impostazioni dell'account utente, la sua attività su altri siti e app potrebbe essere associata alle relative informazioni personali allo scopo di migliorare i servizi Google e gli annunci pubblicati da Google". La modifica alle impostazioni deve essere approvata, ed infatti Google richiede specificatamente, una volta effettuato l'accesso al proprio account via browser web, di accettare tali nuove condizioni. L'utente ha la possibilità di mantenere le impostazioni attuali e continuare ad utilizzare i servizi Google allo stesso modo, mentre per i nuovi account invece le nuove opzioni sono abilitate di default. Coi nuovi termini, se accettati, Google potrà unire i dati di navigazione acquisiti tramite i servizi di analisi o tracking alle informazioni già ottenute dal profilo utente. Tutto ciò permetterà alla casa di Mountain View di comporre un ritratto completo dei propri utenti composto dai dati personali, da ciò che viene scritto nelle email, dai siti web visitati e dalle ricerche effettuate, facendo cadere definitivamente il principio di anonimato del tracciamento web.
    http://www.saggiamente.com/2016/10/ad...ource=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    Voting 0
  2. Cook was characteristically passionate about all three topics. A theme that has persisted following his appearance on Charlie Rose late last year to define how Apple handled encryption, his public letter on Apple’s new security page in the wake of the celebrity nude hacking incidents and his speech earlier this year at President Obama’s Summit on Cybersecurity at Stanford — an event which was notably not attended by other Silicon Valley CEOs like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer and Google’s Larry Page and Eric Schmidt.

    Cook lost no time in directing comments at companies (obviously, though not explicitly) like Facebook and Google, which rely on advertising to users based on the data they collect from them for a portion, if not a majority, of their income.

    “I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” said Cook. “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”

    Cook went on to state, as he has before when talking about products like Apple Pay, that Apple ‘doesn’t want your data.’

    They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong.

    — Tim Cook

    “We don’t think you should ever have to trade it for a service you think is free but actually comes at a very high cost. This is especially true now that we’re storing data about our health, our finances and our homes on our devices,” Cook went on, getting even more explicit when talking about user privacy.

    “We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. And we think some day, customers will see this for what it is.”

    That, in case you missed it, is an epic subtweet of Google’s Photos product, which was just rolled out at I/O.The fact that Photos is free of charge, and Apple’s products are not likely spurred the talk about “very high costs.”

    That product uploads all of your photos, with unlimited storage, to Google’s cloud, organizing, improving and giving you access to a deep history of your images. By many accounts, Photos is a fantastic product, but even early on people have begun to point out the obvious tradeoff that you’re making when you sign up.

    Encryption

    Cook then switched gears to talk about encryption — directly addressing the efforts by policy makers to force Apple to offer a ‘master key’ that would allow government agencies access to consumer devices.

    “There’s another attack on our civil liberties that we see heating up every day — it’s the battle over encryption. Some in Washington are hoping to undermine the ability of ordinary citizens to encrypt their data,” said Cook.

    “We think this is incredibly dangerous. We’ve been offering encryption tools in our products for years, and we’re going to stay on that path. We think it’s a critical feature for our customers who want to keep their data secure. For years we’ve offered encryption services like iMessage and FaceTime because we believe the contents of your text messages and your video chats is none of our business.”

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been waging a war on “pervasive encryption,” painting it as an enabler of terrorism. Every security researcher and logical human being on the planet understands that this is ridiculous. And Cook is one of them.

    “If you put a key under the mat for the cops, a burglar can find it, too. Criminals are using every technology tool at their disposal to hack into people’s accounts. If they know there’s a key hidden somewhere, they won’t stop until they find it,” Cook continued.

    “Removing encryption tools from our products altogether, as some in Washington would like us to do, would only hurt law-abiding citizens who rely on us to protect their data. The bad guys will still encrypt; it’s easy to do and readily available.”

    Cook then took it a step further, noting that weakening encryption could have a ‘chilling effect’ on our First Amendment rights.

    The bad guys will still encrypt; it’s easy to do and readily available.

    — Tim Cook

    “Now, we have a deep respect for law enforcement, and we work together with them in many areas, but on this issue we disagree. So let me be crystal clear — weakening encryption, or taking it away, harms good people that are using it for the right reasons. And ultimately, I believe it has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights and undermines our country’s founding principles.”
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/appl...hcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29#.ph1qij:nbrA
    Voting 0
  3. In conclusione l’attuazione della cookie law si presenta come una mera operazione di maquillage che non tutela affatto i visitatori, quanto piuttosto costringe molti blogger a obblighi burocratici defatiganti che scoraggeranno moltissimi dall’aprire e gestire siti web.
    http://www.valigiablu.it/il-chiarimen...ro-a-rischio-moltissimi-siti-italiani
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-07)
    Voting 0
  4. Torno sull'argomento #cookielaw perché quello che sta accadendo è una follia vera e propria (pur essendo perfettamente a conoscenza dell'importanza della tutela della privacy degli individui). L'impressione netta è che, nella impossibilità di normare chi fa davvero uso della profilazione, si sia adottata una linea di azione liberticida.
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smg853?new_post=true
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-02)
    Voting 0
  5. we know for a fact that companies like Google are giving corporate advertisers access to users based on the personal data they control -- and many of those advertisers are targeting individuals with the express intent to rip them off, sell them deadly products, and financially impoverish them.

    Some advertisers are just trying to help customers find a product they might like, but the dark version of online marketing is that it can facilitate what economists call "price discrimination," selling the same exact good at a variety of prices in ways unknown to the buyers. Researchers Rosa-Branc Esteves and Joana Resende highlight how with the low costs of online advertising, such online price discrimination systematically shifts wealth from consumers to corporate profits. One implication of their models is that "average prices with mass advertising i.e. without the discrimination allowed by targeting individual users online » are below those with targeted advertising," which follows the idea that firms will target certain consumers with promotions while enjoying higher prices paid by consumers kept ignorant of lower prices offered to others.

    Early Internet visionary Jaron Lanier, who pioneered ideas like "virtual reality" two decades ago, has noted that such access to behavioral targeting has even more appeal to the "tawdry" kinds of firms than the "dignified side of capitalism", since "ambulance chasers and snake oil salesmen" among the capitalist class thrive on such targeted access to their victims.

    Google isn't usually identified as a big player in the subprime mortgage debacle and its aftermath, but a significant portion of Google's profits in the mid-2000s were coming straight from subprime mortgage lenders advertising on its site. As Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy said back in 2007, "Many online companies depend for a disproportionate amount of their income on financial services advertising, with subprime in some cases accounting for a large part of it."

    Companies enticed customers with unrealistic "teaser rates" -- heavily advertised online -- that burdened borrowers with toxic terms and unmanageable obligations that exploded in later years. And as the racial and exploitive aspect of the mortgage meltdown was endemic with what some scholars described as reverse redlining, "the practice of targeting borrowers of color for loans on unfavorable terms." This offering of differential rates based on the characteristics of the borrower constitutes the most damaging price discrimination inflicting consumer harm in American history, for which Google played an integral (and profitable) role as an advertising intermediary where it was earning billions of dollars a year in that role.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-...ource=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    Voting 0
  6. Have you guys heard of The Next Five Billion? Yeah? They’re really excited about this in Silicon Valley. The Next Five Billion are these poor souls in parts of the world where they can’t connect to the internet; they don’t have the resources, and there’s nobody locally who could fix this problem of course, so the white man has to bring the fire, right? With things like balloons with Google Loon, or Internet.org which is already working, where they’re giving free internet, but it’s not the full internet; it’s only Facebook and a few other services.

    So in the future, there might be a whole nation whose notion of the internet is something you sign into with your Google username or password, or your Facebook username and password, and that’s quite a bleak future to look forward to. And it’s also what I call digital imperialism. It is a new form of colonialism.

    So that’s data about you. But there’s more data in the world, right? And Google needs that data as well, so how do they get it? They’ve got satellites of course, they’ve got maps; beautiful Google Street View. Who’s seen the Google Street View Car here? Who’s done something funny while it was going by? Yeah. But there’s some places they can’t go with a car and they need the data. So there’s the Google Street View Trike for places you can’t go with a car but you need the data, right? And if you can’t go there with a trike, there’s the Google Street View Snowmobile. You can use that. And if you can’t go there with a snowmobile, maybe it’s indoors, there’s the Google Street View Trolley for that. And if you can’t go there with a trolley but you need the data, there is the Google Street View Backpack. And I saw this the other day; I shit you not!

    Now. Do you kinda get the feeling they need the data? Do you? Talk about Apple; they’ve got a different business model my friend; they sell products. They don’t sell your data, but we can talk about them. They’re not great; they’re closed, but they are a very different company. So that’s why I’m not talking about Apple, but thank you for bringing it up.

    So, what is the end-game? What are we trying to do? What does all of this combine into? Data about the world, data about all of us. What do we get if we combine all of that? Well we get what I would call the Camera Panopticon. And you might say Aral, OK, so they’re building this Camera Panopticon that knows everything about the world and everything about us. And that’s probably a useful tool for manipulating behaviour, for even, depending on how good your lens is, in predicting the future and creating it. But at least they don’t share it with governments, right? Well, wrong, of course. Since 9/11 things have changed. In the US, they’ve formed this, the Information Awareness Office, with the publicly stated goal of attaining total information awareness, knowing everything about everyone and everything. Now, if you’re going to do that, this was their real logo. Don’t make this your logo! Really! People get scared with a pyramid with an all-seeing eye shooting laser beams at the world. So, people got scared, and they were like, we were kidding, we’re just going to shut it down, right? That was a joke, ha-ha!

    And of course, they didn’t shut it down, as Edward Snowden’s revelations showed last year and we’ll be hearing from him tonight. The NSA really needs to hire a PowerPoint designer! But apart from that, all of these companies that we trusted with our most personal data, we realised were sharing it with the Government, all of this data that we thought was private. Why? Well easy; because data that you have volunteered to a third party is not under the same protections under the law. It’s so much easier for them to go to one place and to ask them for information you have volunteered. It’s like a drive-through MacDonald’s or something, you know, if you’re an agency, it’s just like all this data in one place and I just have to ask; it’s beautiful, right?

    privacy is not about whether or not you have something to hide; it’s about having the right to choose what you want to keep to yourself and what you want to share with others. It’s a fundamental human right that we have seen fit to enshrine in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 12 specifically. So, when these companies that need your data, that don’t respect your privacy, tell you, oh my gosh, we are fighting for your privacy, right, and if they build things like reform government surveillance and say, “We’re fighting for your privacy; the government is evil.” There’s a term for that. It is “bullshit”. Right?

    It is bullshit and it is misdirection. This is a cornerstone of magic.

    here’s the problem. If you want the problem at its core, this is the problem: in order to share something with your friend, you shouldn’t also have to share it with a stranger. You should be able to share it directly with them. This is not a complicated problem, and it doesn’t require a complicated solution. And if anyone tells you it’s a complicated problem, they probably have a vested interested in it appearing to be complicated. If we can do this, then we can start people off in their own homes, not in the home of a known abuser. We can start them off somewhere that is safe, not start them off somewhere that’s unsafe and say, “Protect yourself”. And if we can do this, then we can build products that actually protect our human rights, that protect our fundamental freedoms, that protect democracy.
    https://ind.ie/the-camera-panopticon
    Voting 0
  7. I switched from using a BlackBerry to an Android phone a few years ago it really irked me that the only way to keep my contacts info on the phone was to also let Google sync them into their cloud. This may not be true universally (I think some samsung phones will let you store contacts to the SD card) but it was true for phone I was using then and is true on the Nexus 4 I'm using now. It took a lot of painful digging through Android source and googling, but I successfully ended up writing a bunch of code to get around this.

    I've been meaning to put up the code and post this for a while, but kept procrastinating because the code wasn't generic/pretty enough to publish. It still isn't but it's better to post it anyway in case somebody finds it useful, so that's what I'm doing.

    In a nutshell, what I wrote is an Android app that includes (a) an account authenticator, (b) a contacts sync adapter and (c) a calendar sync adapter. On a stock Android phone this will allow you to create an "account" on the device and add contacts/calendar entries to it.

    Note that I wrote this to interface with the way I already have my data stored, so the account creation process actually tries to validate the entered credentials against a webhost, and the the contacts sync adapter is actually a working one-way sync adapter that will download contact info from a remote server in vcard format and update the local database. The calendar sync adapter, though, is just a dummy. You're encouraged to rip out the parts that you don't want and use the rest as you see fit. It's mostly meant to be a working example of how this can be accomplished.

    The net effect is that you can store contacts and calendar entries on the device so they don't get synced to Google, but you can still use the built-in contacts and calendar apps to manipulate them. This benefits from much better integration with the rest of the OS than if you were to use a third-party contacts or calendar app.
    https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=827
    Voting 0
  8. If we give up all our privacy on-line for contextual ads, then how come so many of them are so far off the mark? Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you. And then the online world becomes customized, just for you.

    The real problem with this scenario is that is we're paying for contextual ads and content with our personal data, but we're not getting what we pay for. Facebook advertising is off target and almost completely irrelevant. The question is: Why? Facebook has a database of our explicitly stated interests, which many users fill out voluntarily. Facebook sees what we post about. It knows who we interact with.

    It counts our likes, monitors our comments and even follows us around the Web. Yet, while the degree of personal data collection is extreme, the advertising seems totally random.

    Advertising on Google Search and in Google Ads on Amazon and other websites mostly seems to promote things that I've looked at or already purchased. For example, if I buy a wallet, I see hundreds of ads for wallets for months afterward -- the one thing I definitely don't need.

    The problem isn't that we're giving up all our personal data. The problem is that we're giving it up for nothing.
    http://www.computerworld.com/article/...rity0/why-do-contextual-ads-fail.html
    Voting 0
  9. Il dibattito esploso in Europa a valle della decisione della Corte di Giustizia non riguarda tanto la configurabilità o meno di un “diritto all’oblio” in Rete che è questione ormai vecchia ancorché mai sopita ma la scelta dei Giudici di rendere i gestori dei motori di ricerca “arbitri dell’oblio”, lasciando a questi ultimi decidere se e quali contenuti debbano restare indicizzati con i dati personali del richiedente e quali, invece, possano essere disindicizzati.

    E’ questa “privatizzazione della giustizia” e l’aver demandato ad un soggetto privato – diverso, peraltro, da chi ha prodotto o pubblicato il contenuto – che preoccupa e lascia perplessi.

    Ma che accade se il gestore del motore di ricerca disindicizza un contenuto che avrebbe dovuto rimanere indicizzato perché di evidente interesse pubblico?

    L’autore o l’editore di quel contenuto, così come chiunque sia interessato ad accedervi a quale giudice potranno rivolgersi per far valere la propria libertà di fare e ricevere informazioni?

    L’unica risposta possibile sembra: nessuno.

    Nessuno, infatti, può rivendicare davanti ad un motore di ricerca il diritto all’indicizzazione con la conseguenza che nessuno può, allo stato, chiedere ad un Giudice di ordinare al gestore di un motore di ricerca di ri-indicizzare un contenuto che non avrebbe dovuto essere disindicizzato.
    http://guidoscorza.nova100.ilsole24or...fatare-secondo-la-commissione-europea
    Voting 0
  10. il diritto all'oblio è contrapposto al diritto alla Storia: più si espande il primo più si comprime la seconda. La cronaca di oggi è la Storia di domani: i fatti di cronaca sono tessere di un solo mosaico. Non credo dunque che la cronaca possa avere una scadenza. Togliere un contenuto dai risultati significa strappare l'indice dei nomi di un libro di Storia. Non tocca al motore di ricerca decidere della rimozione".

    "Internet non è il mondo - ha ribattuto la scrittrice Lorella Zanardo, che fa anche parte della commissione parlamentare sui diritti e doveri su internet - non esaurisce le informazioni a disposizione. Senza contare che per la memoria storica è più importante organizzare i dati piuttosto che preservarne enormi quantità. Ciò che può essere rilevante per un individuo può non esserlo per altre ragioni". Insomma, il diritto all'oblio ha una sua rilevanza, anche come strumento per l'educazione "verso un utilizzo consapevole del web e una maggiore padronanza dei propri dati nei giovani".

    "Il meccanismo non è nuovo - ha aggiunto Alessandro Mantelero del Politecnico di Torino e del Nexa Center for internet and society - esiste già in Europa come negli Stati Uniti. Se non c'è un interesse collettivo scatta infatti il diritto all'oblio: lo riconoscono anche i tribunali Usa. Sono dunque d'accordo con la sentenza nei suoi elementi fondamentali: la soluzione non può essere però un bilanciamento realizzato da una società privata. Altri soggetti, come i giornali, hanno le competenze. Google fa un altro lavoro e non conosce i fatti". Da lui una proposta concreta: "La chiave per risolvere la situazione potrebbe dunque essere una disposizione legale che si concentri su una cancellazione temporanea del link. Se entro 30 giorni non si esprime un'autorità giudiziaria, il collegamento viene mostrato di nuovo".
    http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2...ws/google_diritto_oblio-95448798/?rss
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2014-09-12)
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 5 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: privacy + google

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle