Creating stronger privacy controls inside Google Posted by Alan Eustace, Senior VP, Engineering & Research(Cross-posted on the Official Google Blog) In May we announced that we had mistakenly collected unencrypted WiFi payload data (information sent over networks) using our Street View cars. We work hard at Google to earn your trust, and we’re acutely aware that we failed badly here. So we’ve spent the past several months looking at how to strengthen our internal privacy and security practices, as well as talking to external regulators globally about possible improvements to our policies. Here’s a summary of the changes we’re now making. First, people: we have appointed Alma Whitten as our director of privacy across both engineering and product management.
ACLU, EFF Contend Government Needs Probable Cause & Warrant to Track Cell Phones | ACLUTx.org – The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Organizations Seek to Defend Privacy Rights FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Jose Medina, Media Coordinator, ACLU of Texas, (512) 478-7300 x 103; firstname.lastname@example.org AUSTIN – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and American Civil Liberties Union of Texas have joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in opposing federal government attempts to obtain cell phone users’ historical location data from cell phone service providers without establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant. In an amicus (friend of the court) brief filed Friday in U. S.
Privacy Win: Cellphone Search Without Warrant Declared Illegal -
Your Cellphone Is Subject to Warrantless Searches in California This falls under one of those areas in law enforcement know as "probable cause." If an officer has probable cause to believe that there is evidence on your phone, then at the time of the arrest they may be allowed to search it. Just the same as searching your person for drugs or weapons upon arrest. They shouldn't just be going through your phone for fun.
The real cost of free | Cory Doctorow | Technology Last week, my fellow Guardian columnist Helienne Lindvall published a piece headlined The cost of free, in which she called it "ironic" that "advocates of free online content" (including me) "charge hefty fees to speak at events". Lindvall says she spoke to someone who approached an agency I once worked with to hire me for a lecture and was quoted $10,000-$20,000 (£6,300-£12,700) to speak at a college and $25,000 to speak at a conference. Lindvall goes on to talk about the fees commanded by other speakers, including Wired editor Chris Anderson, author of a book called "Free" (which I reviewed here in July 2009), Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde and marketing expert Seth Godin. In Lindvall's view, all of us are part of a united ideology that exhorts artists to give their work away for free, but we don't practice what we preach because we charge so much for our time. It's unfortunate that Lindvall didn't bother to check her facts.
The privacy industry: Scare and sell « BuzzMachine At two privacy conferences—one in New York, the other right now in Victoria, B.C.—I’ve watched the growth of privacy’s regulatory/industrial complex and seen its strategy in action: scare, then sell. Yesterday, before I spoke at the Reboot conference, the privacy commissioner for the province, Elizabeth Denham, got up to demonize the social net and its leaders. She said that Google’s Eric Schmidt believes privacy is not relevant anymore, citing his jokes about changing our names at age 21. She belittled Mark Zuckerberg, too.
Would You Trust the Government to Control Your Online Identity? i vote yes. Yes because this is exactly what we talked about in the Gawker incident. Yes, because I believe people are looking at this wrong. I've read many of these arguments and I do not yet find a the problem with them.