Visits - Explore the places you have visited. Faraday — data-driven marketing platform. Our Government Has Weaponized the Internet. Here's How They Did It | Wired Opinion. The internet backbone — the infrastructure of networks upon which internet traffic travels — went from being a passive infrastructure for communication to an active weapon for attacks. According to revelations about the QUANTUM program, the NSA can “shoot” (their words) an exploit at any target it desires as his or her traffic passes across the backbone. It appears that the NSA and GCHQ were the first to turn the internet backbone into a weapon; absent Snowdens of their own, other countries may do the same and then say, “It wasn’t us.
And even if it was, you started it.” If the NSA can hack Petrobras, the Russians can justify attacking Exxon/Mobil. If GCHQ can hack Belgacom to enable covert wiretaps, France can do the same to AT&T. If the Canadians target the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Chinese can target the U.S. Which means the rest of us — and especially any company or individual whose operations are economically or politically significant — are now targets. Censorship. How to delete your Amazon browsing history. Amazon provides a relatively private shopping experience. Whether you're just price-checking on gifts for friends and family, or searching for items that you might be embarrassed to look at in public, you can do it all from your computer. Unfortunately, looking up these items will add them to your browsing history, and they can also appear on your related purchase suggestions.
These could reveal a bit too much information if you share a computer or check Amazon on a lunch break from your desk at work. Here's how to delete select items, or all of them, from your browsing history on Amazon: Head to Amazon.com in your Web browser and click on Your Account near the top right. Enlarge Image Scroll down to the Personalization section of your account, then click View and Edit Your Browsing History. You can look through items by category, or all at once. You can also opt out of browsing history by doing the following: Click the turn off your browsing history link on the left of the same page. The Future Of Algorithmic Personalization. Personalization algorithms influence what you’ve chosen yesterday, what you choose today and what you’ll be choosing tomorrow. Simultaneously, there seems to be something wrong with personalization.
We are continuously bumping into obtrusive, uninteresting ads. Our digital personal assistant isn’t all that personal. We’ve lost friends to the algorithmic abyss of the News feed. Personalization’s image of us is like looking yourself in the funfair’s house of mirrors. Personalization Gaps There are five main reasons why personalization remains broken. Data gap means that any algorithmic environment has only a limited amount of data about you. Computing gap refers to the limitations of computing power and machine-learning technologies. Personalization caricaturizes us and creates a striking gap between our real interests and their digital reflection.
Interest gap is related to the conflicting interests of users, platforms and third-party actors (e.g., marketers). Featured Image: J.D.S. Google accidentally reveals data on 'right to be forgotten' requests | Technology. Less than 5% of nearly 220,000 individual requests made to Google to selectively remove links to online information concern criminals, politicians and high-profile public figures, the Guardian has learned, with more than 95% of requests coming from everyday members of the public.
The Guardian has discovered new data hidden in source code on Google’s own transparency report that indicates the scale and flavour of the types of requests being dealt with by Google – information it has always refused to make public. The data covers more than three-quarters of all requests to date. Previously, more emphasis has been placed on selective information concerning the more sensational examples of so-called right to be forgotten requests released by Google and reported by some of the media, which have largely ignored the majority of requests made by citizens concerned with protecting their personal privacy.
By contrast, for each of the other categories, around one in five have actually been delisted. The Future of Personal Privacy - Review of “You Have Been Inventoried” On Friday March 6, 2015, more than 3,000 people attended the ASU Emerge event. This is where Eric Kingsbury, futurist, founder of KITEBA, cofounder of the Confluence Project, launched “You Have Been Inventoried”. I helped with some of the content for the project, along with others from the Confluence Project. You Have Been Inventoried raised several questions: • What will the future of privacy be? • What will be become of individual identity in the future? During the event, visitors gathered in the 10 x 10 room, which represented a small amphitheater, with projection from three different slide shows with music. There were masks laid out on a table for visitors who were inclined to use them so that their identity would not be recorded.
Throughout the evening, we inventoried over 100 people. One visitor did bring up an astute observation about the barcoding we used. Bob Briscoe, chief researcher in networking and infrastructure for British Telecom, wrote: Photos by Eric Kingsbury. Thanks to data, in the future, everyone will be anonymous 15 minutes. Forget Andy Warhol. "In the future," his spiritual heir Banksy noted in an objet d'art, "everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes. " Virtually no one and nothing today is completely under the radar or off the grid, no matter what they think, thanks to the growing data trails that shine a light on us and our actions. Invisibility is fast becoming as much a delusion as invulnerability, and as apt a conceit to get one into trouble. We are all open books and, though our digital dossier may go unread, it's foolhardy to think we'll be judged solely by our cover. Assuming what isn't yet known is forever unknowable, irrelevant or simply no one's business is information-age hubris.
The biggest mistake we, our businesses and our institutions can make is to think no one will notice us, what we're doing and what we've done. And nearly every scandal or expose these days should be a reminder to be clean, transparent and honest because those data trails can easily become nooses. philrosenthal@tribpub.com. Artist Richard Prince Sells Other People’s Instagram Photos For $100,000, Without Permission. Diebstahl: Künstler macht Millionen mit fremden Instagram-Fotos - DIE WELT mobil. Wir leben in exhibitionistischen Zeiten. Selfies gehören zum Alltag, das Hochladen auf Instagram, Facebook und Twitter zur Norm.
Da ist es wenig überraschend, dass irgendwann jemand auf die Idee kommt, wildfremde Bilder zu nehmen und zu "vergolden". Immerhin sind die Bilder in den meisten Fällen frei zugänglich. Richard Prince ist so jemand. Ein "Meister-Recycler", wie die "Welt" ihn 2014 beschrieb. Im vergangenen Herbst hatte der New Yorker Künstler insgesamt 38 Fotos aus seinem Instagram-Feed genommen, sie auf Leinwand gezogen und in der Gagosian Gallery unter dem Titel "Neue Porträts" ausgestellt. Für bis zu 90.000 Dollar pro Stück brachte er die Bilder an den Kunstliebhaber. Das Problem aber ist – und das ist Prince' Masche –, dass er die Urheber nicht um Erlaubnis zur Verwendung der Bilder gebeten hat. Eine von ihnen ist Instagram-Nutzerin "doedeere". Sie könnte es auch gar nicht. Face Work from Zellweger to Goffman - The Editors' Desk. Renee Zellweger received a ton of attention last week, not all of it wanted.
The core of the story, if you haven’t been following along, is that the “work” (most insist her strikingly different new look must be the result of extensive plastic surgery) that Zellweger had done was so extensive that her fans and many others could no longer recognize the 45-year-old movie star. “She looked,” as the Washington Post quoted one fan, “different. Maybe not bad. Just not at all like herself.” Coincidentally, the reading for my “great books in sociology seminar” last week was Erving Goffman’s classic treatment of stigma. Much of Stigma is about how people deal with various deformities and social blemishes in their daily lives (“the management of a spoiled identity” in Goffman’s dry, sardonic subtitle). Another recent example is the actress Jennifer Grey—the young star of the original “Dirty Dancing” movie whose rhinoplasty removed her most distinctive feature.
Let’s all be a lot less honest: Lena Dunham, naked selfies, and the irony of oversharing. Duke University law professor Jedediah Purdy, the author of a deeply smart and ambitious book I obsessed over in 1999, “For Common Things,” recently published a curious opinion piece on the Daily Beast. In it he writes, “There is something indecent in asking people to fake a feeling for a living” and argued that somehow modern capitalism performs “a pervasive intrusion on a key aspect of autonomy: the right to be yourself.” Purdy’s prime examples of the intruded-upon are waiters and waitresses, who he says are being extorted because they have to be nice to customers in order to receive tips, even though the act makes them betray their real feelings.
He believes this pressure to be friendly is caused by “unequal economic power that extorts emotional work.” Being nice, he writes, has become the “the job of the less privileged … that’s nothing new: emotional work is part of the oldest profession, but it’s a growing part of everyone’s experience.” But wait. Actually, the opposite is true. Periscope, YouNow, and the hidden costs of surveillance. Last Thursday, New York City’s East Village looked like a war zone.
A massive explosion completely leveled two buildings and damaged three others, wounding at least 19. Two people were killed. But oddly, the prevailing story in media circles isn’t necessarily about the free gas scheme that may have led to the explosion, or the deaths of Nicholas Figueroa or Moises Ismael Locón Ya, the two young men who lost their lives. It’s about an app. The explosion came on the same day as the launch of Periscope, a new app by Twitter that allows users to produce real-time live video streams for their followers. It’s an understandable technology or “future-of-media” take, but fixating on the medium, despite being the calling of tech journalists, seems insensitive and callow. For many, these relatively inconsequential controversies have a broader implication. It’s not simply that we have more cameras at our disposal; it’s that we’ve become conditioned to constantly use them. How to Leak to The Intercept. People often tell reporters things their employers, or their government, want to keep suppressed.
But leaking can serve the public interest, fueling revelatory and important journalism. This publication was created in part as a platform for journalism arising from unauthorized disclosures by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Our founders and editors are strongly committed to publishing stories based on leaked material when that material is newsworthy and serves the public interest. So ever since The Intercept launched, our staff has tried to put the best technology in place to protect our sources. Our website has been protected with HTTPS encryption from the beginning.
But caution is still advised to those who want to communicate with us without exposing their real-world identities. What Not To Do If you are a whistleblower trying to figure out the best way to contact us, here are some things you should not do: Don’t contact us from work. Don’t tell anyone that you’re a source. Questions? Freddy Martinez Is Exposing Chicago Cops' NSA-Style Surveillance Gear. It took the curiosity of a skinny, fidgeting 27-year-old to force the Chicago Police Department to admit they purchased controversial surveillance technology.
The department, legally boxed into a corner over its use of a device known as the StingRay, finally admitted to acquiring the cell-phone tracking product last summer, six years after actually buying the thing. The watchdog work came not from a newspaper or any other media outlet in the city, but Freddy Martinez, an information technology worker who oversees websites for a private company from a downtown office building. Martinez is now in the midst of his second lawsuit against the Chicago police over their refusal to disclose how they actually use the StingRay. These types of devices can capture, track, and monitor cell phone data, even without judicial oversight. "I was interested in it from a technological standpoint," he said of the device. "They basically ignored it," Martinez told me. "Police sources. " Facebook 'tracks all visitors, breaching EU law' | Technology. Facebook tracks the web browsing of everyone who visits a page on its site even if the user does not have an account or has explicitly opted out of tracking in the EU, extensive research commissioned by the Belgian data protection agency has revealed.
The report, from researchers at the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT (ICRI) and the Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography department (Cosic) at the University of Leuven, and the media, information and telecommunication department (Smit) at Vrije Universiteit Brussels, was commissioned after an original draft report revealed Facebook’s privacy policy breaches European law. The researchers now claim that Facebook tracks computers of users without their consent, whether they are logged in to Facebook or not, and even if they are not registered users of the site or explicitly opt out in Europe. Facebook tracks users in order to target advertising. Facebook’s tracking practices have ‘no legal basis’ ‘Privacy-friendly’ design. U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure — The Atlantic. When the government places a location monitor on you or your stuff, it could be violating the Fourth Amendment.
If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that state’s high court. The Court’s short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.
“It doesn’t matter what the context is, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF). In this case, that context was punishment. Then it lists a series of Supreme Court precedents. Newyorker. In popular conceptions of dystopia, names are often among the first things to disappear. The totalitarian futures of Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We” envision a citizenry known by numbers, like prisoners. Names vanish along with sight in José Saramago’s “Blindness.” They evidently have no function in the blasted post-apocalypse of Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road.” These are extreme cases, perhaps—barring Armageddons, you might expect people to know what they are called. But, in recent years, a curious number of novelists have declined to avail themselves of that basic prerogative: naming their creations.
The first few months of 2015 alone have brought us the following books with nameless protagonists: Tom McCarthy’s “Satin Island,” Ben Metcalf’s “Against the Country,” Greg Baxter’s “Munich Airport,” Daniel Galera’s “Blood-Drenched Beard,” Deepti Kapoor’s “A Bad Character,” Paul Beatty’s “The Sellout,” Alejandro Zambra’s “My Documents.” But these are historical projects. The 10 Algorithms That Dominate Our World. Philip K. Dick's 1969 novel Ubik on the Internet of Things. Facebook's apps talk to each other—and they know everything about you. The plot to replace the internet. Are You Ready for Phone Numbers as Unique User Identity? V. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA to challenge upstream mass surveillance. TouchTone holds a mirror to our post-Snowden surveillance state.
Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Put Your Baby Photos Online — Matter. How One Woman Hid Her Pregnancy From Big Data. Will online anonymity win out? – Jamie Bartlett. Identity Work and the Authentic Cyborg Self. The Surveillance-Industrial Complex. Anonymity on the Web. How to Burst the "Filter Bubble" that Protects Us from Opposing Views. Www.privacyistheenemy.com. Our Government Has Weaponized the Internet. Here's How They Did It | Wired Opinion. The Anonymity Experiment. Privacy and Identity. People Search. "Is This You?" - lifelogging, privacy and scandal by Tom Scott at Electromagnetic Field 2012.