Category: Uncategorized

Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703467304575383522318244234-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwMzEwNDMyWj.html; Stalkers Exploit Cellphone GPS – Mobile Location Tracking – WSJ.com

In August of 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that global-positioning-system (GPS) technology offered by cellular carriers is being used by stalkers. Although the technology is intended to rescue lost drivers, locate kidnap victims and enable other noble endeavors, it has had the unintended consequence of allowing stalkers to more easily track their victims. According to the article, cellular GPS technology has become the easiest, and possibly the most common, way for stalkers to locate their targets.

Certain carriers, such as AT&T, offered deals to consumers allowing them to “sign up” for these tracking services. However, although the carrier alerts phone users when tracking functions are activated, such users do not have the right to refuse to be tracked by the account holder. Their only option to avoid detection is to turn off their phone.

Carriers will also agree to deactivate GPS tracking functions if requested to do so by law enforcement officials. As of August 2010, no carriers had been asked to alter their GPS programs.

According to the article, the ease of access to GPS tracking capabilities is, in part, an unintended consequence of federal regulations that require the installation of GPS chips into cellular phones. The intent of these regulations was to allow easier access to emergency services, and the regulations have been largely successful in this area.

Unfortunately, GPS capabilities have also had negative consequences, as tech companies have found other uses for tracking data. For instance, software manufacturers have developed software that can be surreptitiously loaded on someone else’s cellular phone and used to track that person’s movements through the already-existing GPS technology. This allows any third party (i.e. someone other than the cellular carrier) to track someone else’s location. This unintended usage has proven especially problematic for victims of domestic violence, and has even driven certain domestic violence shelters to dismantle the phones of the victims who they house. These systems have also been abused by law enforcement officers who have reportedly used location data for personal reasons. They are able to do so because federal law allows carriers to turn such data over in emergencies without subpoenas, but carriers are unable to verify whether an emergency situation truly exists.

Available at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/03/31/google.face/index.html; Google making app that would identify people’s faces – CNN.com

Google has announced that it is working on a mobile application that would allow users to take pictures of people’s faces in order to access their personal information. The product would include a user’s name, phone number, and e-mail address, but Google has not indicated what other personal data might be available. Indications are that the system could be programmed to obtain publicly available pictures from third-party websites, such as Facebook.

Privacy advocates have expressed concern with this ability, especially in the wake of Google’s recent privacy “missteps.” For example, Google recently settled over grievances relating to its social networking service, Buzz. Google is also in the midst of inquiries by numerous government agencies concerning its Street View program.

Perhaps in response to privacy concerns, Google plans to use an “opt-in” model, whereby people would have to agree to give Google permission to access their personal information via facial recognition. Although this would limit the application’s utility, Google foresees many circumstances in which people would agree to be found.

Surely most of you have seen Google’s “new” feature, Gmail Motion. If not, check out the video below:

Gmail Motion

The April Fools’ posting has become a bit of a tradition at Google. My personal favorite is Google Gulp. There’s a lot of fun to be had here for sure. But there’s also a lesson to be learned – or at least something serious to think about.

The Google pranks work because, like it or not, they are presented in the same “trust us, it’s OK” fashion as the rest of Google’s services. Like it or not, we have become accustomed to filling in forms, following links, and generally passively interacting with services we use online. When Google says “click here to find out about this amazing new service,” we probably do so. And when Google shows us a video about this new service, we expect to be (and are perhaps conditioned to think) that everything the video demonstrates is as great as it purports it to be.

Google, of course, capitalizes on this in building the visual elements of the prank. For example, the link to the prank is subtly included at the top right of the Gmail webmail client and below the Google homepage search field. These locations are precisely where Google draws us into legitimate new products. So we click.

The prank deepens with the landing page, the video on which is linked to above. The page is decked out just like any other Google product page. The usual language, font set, graphical flare – it’s all there. It draws us in in such a way that it might take a few minutes before we actually think critically about the substance. And, depending on how strong this effect is, we might be half through a tweet or Facebook posting about the service before we realize we’ve been duped. Not because we’re stupid. But because we’re operating on some sort of aesthetically-driven autopilot.

The point is that trusted parties such as Google have enormous ability to leverage the trust of users. In this case, the harm is minimal. A little embarrassment, if anything. This won’t always be the case. Google (and other major providers such as Facebook) are adept at using visual architecture, friendly tone, and other “trust cues.” Where the end result is a short video that informs you of the prank, there’s not much to worry about. But where the end result is unwitting participation in a terrible service such as Buzz, the ante is significantly upped.

The solution isn’t, of course, that we shouldn’t trust anything online. Services such as Gmail exist because we all trust Google with our content. Such trust, unmitigated, is problematic. But such trust, properly limited, is necessary to ensure the societal surplus that results when we can all use a valuable service such as Gmail. Rather, the problem is the risk of passive use and acculturation – the problem of “clicking here” or filling out a form by rote and without proper consideration.

I don’t have a solution for this problem in mind. For the moment, I’d just suggest that while we laugh at Google’s gag, we take a moment to think about why it’s so effective – and how the engine of that efficacy drives more serious and problematic privacy issues online.

Google Book Search allows anyone to search a massive library of books that Google has scanned. A few years ago, the Authors Guild sued Google to stop the project and various settlement agreements have subsequently been proposed. Judge Denny Chin recently rejected the latest settlement agreement.^[1] Though he suggested that the opt-out provision, allowing Google to scan any work unless the right holder opts out, was the main reason for rejecting the settlement, Chin also stated that “the privacy concerns are real.”

Chin noted the concern that the settlement agreement does not limit what reader information Google can track, potentially allowing Google to create detailed profiles of its readers. Chin also noted issues as to whether and to what extent Google could share such information with others. Finally, though not in the opinion, some have voiced concern over transparency with what the privacy policies will be and how much control users will have over their privacy settings.^[2]

Despite the privacy concerns, Chin apparently does not believe “they are a basis in themselves to reject the proposed settlement.” In coming to this conclusion, Chin notes Google has obliged itself to follow voluntary safeguards. But while Google has previously offered assurances that the “principles” of its normal privacy policy would apply to Book Search, it has declined to offer specific details. Google has also suggested it cannot develop an adequate privacy policy until it finishes developing Book Search, though few would argue Book Search is currently so undeveloped that it does not require any consideration of privacy.

While privacy issues may not be the deciding factor in the Google Book Search settlement, and Google has certainly sought to downplay them, they will undoubtedly become an important issue once the legal issues are resolved and the practical problems with the project must be dealt with.

1 See http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf.
2 See http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/google_don’t_close_the_book_on_reader_privacy.shtml

The Chinese Government has announced plans to track 1.7 million cellphone users in Beijing through location technology, in order to help city authorities better manage traffic (see http://www.bjjtgl.gov.cn/publish/portal1/tab165/info23222.htm). However, this raises concerns that the government may abuse this technology for surveillance purposes, infringing a variety of human rights.

China maintains a tight grip on the flow of information within and out of the country. It has already blocked sites like Youtube and Twitter, driven Google China out of the mainland and into Hong Kong, and even required telecommunications operators and internet service providers to cooperate with the State in locating leaks of state secrets:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/asia/07beijing.html

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/21189/20100428/china-telco-isps-communication-information-control-censorship-google-yahoo-facebook-twitter-internet.htm

With the Chinese government now engaging in such highly comprehensive cellphone tracking, a number of human rights concerns arises, including the possibility of political dissenters being monitored and tracked as the government clamps down on its critics. Apart from its judicial branches of government, Chinese citizens can also make claims, “petitions”, to the highest level of government seated in Beijing. Through its many tactics of getting rid of petitioners, the most heinous is tracking down these individuals, arresting them for social disturbance or throwing them in mental institutions (see http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c05091b19.html). Cellphone tracking, although politically neutral on its face, can at best chill free speech and peaceful protests (i.e. Jasmine Rallies), at worst, allow government officials and police to have easier access to dissidents.

Of course, it could be argued that, on a daily basis, individual privacy is hardly interfered with if cellphone tracking is used for its asserted purpose – after all, each person would merely be one of 1.7 million other “trackees” in one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Furthermore, it has been well documented that Beijing has one of the world’s biggest problems with traffic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11062708). Last August, there was a nine-day traffic jam that stretched 100km just outside of Beijing. However, it is questionable what tracking cellphones can really do to aid traffic flow. The main problem is the amount of cars on the road — better solutions should target a reduction of cars, rather than simply band-aid solutions to track individuals.

Further, if tracking were really implemented concerns do arise where “targeted” rather than simply “general” cellphone tracking takes place — a capacity that both the Chinese and all other governments possess, and is highly susceptible to abuse.

For more information:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/03/china_said_it_may_begin.html

In FCC v. AT&T, AT&T argued it was a “corporate citizen” entitled to “personal privacy” and thus, entitled to the FOIA exemption that protects an individual’s private data.  AT&T was trying to block disclosure of documents pertaining to its participation in the government’s E-Rate program.  The Supreme Court  ruled corporations don’t have personal privacy rights.

Read more about this here.

Google’s Street View is a functionality that U.S. Internet users take for granted.  When we’re looking up a new restaurant to try or checking out a potential apartment, Street View allows us to get real pictures of any street or building in public view from the ground level up. Included in Street view are the people walking on the street as well as cars parked on the street.

Now entering the international market, Google is facing obstacles from the Swiss and Israeli governments, each with diverging rationales for their resistance.

Concerned from a personal privacy point of view, Switzerland contends that Street View is a breach of personal privacy because Google can’t ensure that 100% of all faces of individuals and license plates of cars are blurred. Meanwhile, Google is continuing to take “street view” pictures in Switzerland and petitioning Swiss courts to allow it to load the new images.

Also adopting a hesitant attitude towards Street View is the Israeli government, but for a different reason–national security. The Israeli government is balancing the benefits of Street View (in particular, the promotion of tourism) and the risk of exposure of information to potential terrorism. Israel argues that Street View would facilitate terrorists attack. Palestinian militants had used Google Earth previously to identify targets. Nevertheless, the government intends to work with Google to slowly introduce Street View to its citizens.

Some argue that the decision regarding Google Street View should not be made wholesale by the Israeli government and suggest the default for each community should be no Street View with the ability to opt-in if the community decided to grant permission.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/02/24/google-street-view-runs-into-controversies-in-switzerland-and-israel/

Kathryn Stockett, author of the bestselling book The Help, is being sued by a former babysitter for her family for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Ablene Cooper, the former babysitter, claims she was the basis of the character “Aibileen” since they have similar names, both worked for a white family in Jackson, Mississippi and are both middle-aged black women with a gold tooth and a deceased son.  Cooper claims she asked Stockett not to portray her in the book prior to publication, but Stockett refused.  As such, she is suing for “appropriation of another’s identity for an unpermitted use.”

Cooper also claims to be highly embarrassed by the portrayal of the character Aibileen in The Help, which is a novel about Southern domestic workers and their white employers.  She claims to be offended by the ethnic vernacular the character uses and that the character’s skin color is compared to a cockroach.  She claims this “portrayal of Ablene in such a false light is highly offense to a reasonable person” and “has caused Ablene to experience severe emotional distress.”  Cooper has filed suit in Hinds County Circuit Court in Mississippi and is seeking damages of $75,000.  Although Stockett has yet to respond to the suit, her publisher contends that The Help is purely a work of fiction.  Therefore, it seems likely that Stockett will argue that the suit should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

Full Complaint: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2011/02/maid-sues-author-of-help.html

WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703561604576150731091505132-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwODExNDgyWj.html