The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business 120
davecb writes "The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold' is really one of the early advocates for using the internet for access to information, and to open up government. The Globe and Mail has an interview with Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada, who went up against Facebook for all of us, and made them back down."
Re: (Score:2)
"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business" (Score:5, Funny)
My mom?
Re: (Score:1)
If you put a lock on the basement door, she wouldn't be able to go through your things. That, or, y'know, get a place of your own.
Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, your mom. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm making sauerkraut and kidney beans for supper
She's trying to get you to gas yourself out of the basement and flee out under the daystar! It's a trap!
Re:For all of us? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For all of us? (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly? For a privacy commissioner she's done a hell of a job. Taking her mandate seriously? I'd say so. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc, small business, big business, internet related. NGO's, and so on. If you break the privacy act, you'll have her breathing down your neck fast. She's about as non-partisan, and pro-privacy as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For all of us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Is she available for a leave of absence (Score:2)
to work here in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-PERSONAL-privacy.
As someone that deals with this sort of stuff it can be confusing how much power the Freedom of Information Act has. Ya personal privacy is a given, but there are plenty of other things that are sensitive that are not only not protected, but are now being challenged. Which one way or another would be fine, I don't care, its the ambiguity that sucks. I got some requirements for a software system, and they had a line that basically said that the information would only be accessed by those
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only we could get someone of her caliber to be our Public Service Integrity Commissioner!
Also, our Auditor General Sheila Fraser basically rocks. ...good government... not yet completely dismantled by the conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget our Elections folks, who are currently putting the screws to the Conservatives over bogus accounting during the election.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't use Facebook, why do you need to block it's widgets? ::confused::
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason you block Doubleclick and Google Analytics traffic, even though these sites don't (necessarily) know your real-world name either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Facebook's 'Like This' button is tracking you (Whether you click it or not) [thinq.co.uk]
which is derived from this paper:
Facebook Tracks and Traces Everyone: Like This! [ssrn.com] (Social Science Research Network)
Assuming you are not a member of facebook and have no need of the "Share" and "Like" buttons, the hosts file is your friend. Just enter 127.0.0.1 for facebook.net, facebook.com, facebookcdn.com (there may be o
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like there's no problem if you don't allow cookies from them in the first place, as the tracking system is based on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you USE Facebook. If you never go there (i.e. you don't USE it), then there is nothing to block... No?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.
I'm probably getting the exact technical details wrong, but if Facebook can't find a match for you, it creates a "temporary account" for you and tracks you using that number. (So while it might not know your exact details, it can track which sites you've been to.) The punchline is that if you ever create a Facebook account, the system automatically merges your temporary account into your Facebook account (retroactively adding all your previously anonymous details).
It's a pretty interesting system, in a priv
Re:For all of us? (Score:5, Interesting)
With companies maintaining and sharing huge databases they can build a profile of you quite easily.
Consider the following situation, which parallels in in a way.
A friend's girlfriend loved to hang out in an IRC channel. She thought she was "stranger proof" because she limited the amount of information she shared in any one conversation. Some of the items she revealed were public, while others were revealed in "private" conversations. She (erroneously) assumed that some of the private conversations were with individuals sharing no connection with each other.
After hanging out in the channel for a couple of weeks she got a phone call -- from Australia. One of the channel members created profiles of other users and data mined their conversations in order to identify them. Coupled with the ability to search the net for the consistent use of handles that many become attached to, he was able to track down people rather easily.
For him it was a game. For others it's business.
We don't always know who owns the services we use, and rarely have any idea of who the data is shared with. If company A owns sites B and C, they have the data on you that both sites generate.
While he was working with a small group of people who were likely to share information with people they interacted with regularly, having a huge dataset encompassing thousands of your interactions with other sites is just as useful to a company with the means to examine the data.
And privacy policies don't mean squat without someone keeping them honest. Imagine how many sites out there use them as honey traps.
Re:For all of us? (Score:4, Interesting)
Darn right all of us!
An older example of transitive trust causing problems to innocent bystanders was a library system and a drugstore system running on the same time-shared mainframe.
The drugstore system had security up the wazoo, the library did not.
An evil operator did the equivalent of a join on names between the two systems, and selected female persons with prescriptions for birth control pills from one and for addresses from the other, then started stalking.
Neither system alone would have yielded the information, but the combination of the two did, and the results were as startling then as the first cross-site scripting attacks were more recently.
So she's looking out for all of us, even those that don't know the degree to which they're vulnerable.
--dave (I'm genuinely impressed by her) c-b
Re: (Score:1)
A friend's girlfriend loved to hang out in an IRC channel. She thought she was "stranger proof" because she limited the amount of information she shared in any one conversation. Some of the items she revealed were public, while others were revealed in "private" conversations. She (erroneously) assumed that some of the private conversations were with individuals sharing no connection with each other. After hanging out in the channel for a couple of weeks she got a phone call -- from Australia. One of the channel members created profiles of other users and data mined their conversations in order to identify them. Coupled with the ability to search the net for the consistent use of handles that many become attached to, he was able to track down people rather easily.
For him it was a game. For others it's business.
I did exactly this a few years back just for fun. I used to host a server for an old client/server sharing network called Hotline. People would upload stuff to my server so they could download the rest of what was on there. There were a few regulars and there was a chat system included in the software. At one point this girl thought she was completely anonymous, I proved her wrong. Just with info on which state she was in and her nickname, I used google to find out her other nicknames, real name, email addr
Re: (Score:3)
Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?
Good fucking luck. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you'll find your friends uploading your photo to their accounts to cover every party or night out you all share and tagging your image in there. I've always avoided Facebook, only to find that friends have taken pity on me and created a profile for me so that I can log in and check out photos of who they're dating, etc. You can't even buy a modern smartphone without finding Facebook as an uninstallable app built into it (at least the HTC Desire w
Idealist (Score:2)
By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other nati
Re:Idealist (Score:5, Insightful)
Except she doesn't want the government to have the power, she wants the people to have the power, since the government is supposed to receive power from the people. And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.
Re:Idealist (Score:4, Funny)
Eh-men my fellow Canadian!
(couldn't resist)
you people (Score:1)
fellow Canadian!
Looks like you outed yourself.
I just watched "How I met your mother" and they had a long section about canadian sexacts.
You people are sick!
I admit, I love toolgirl. But maple syrup? come on!
security through co-operation and support (Score:4, Insightful)
rather than intimidation and manipulation.
But how do the big multinational arms conglomerates make money off co-operation? Where are the backscatter-xray machine sales in that?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.
No. What you're describing isn't security. Sure, you can feel "secure" by being Little Miss Popular, liked and admired by everyone. You won't have to worry about random bullies stuffing you in a locker, or stealing your lunch. But when the players on the football team say "bend over", there's dick all you can do to stop them. That's why here in Canada - much like they do in the US - we take the two-prong approach. Use cooperation and support when possible, while not hesitating to use force and manipul
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian, I have to say I can only agree on the surface. Our underbelly is just as dark if not darker than that of the US. We just seem to have better PR and a population so hooked on government-provided goodies that its general view of the government is that of benevolent (if childish) provider.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree. I like our happy, maple-syrup-loving face but there's plenty of back-room politics going on here, too. Our current government has plenty of problems. Canadian border security can be pretty arsey, too.
Re: (Score:2)
It is probably darker because it is less exposed to light than the US underbelly.
Re: (Score:1)
And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.
I would have agreed with you prior to the G20 in Toronto in June. But Canada is becoming just as fascist as any other western state, maybe more so, complete with intimidation, beatings, and groundless mass arrest. You may be thinking of the old Canada, where if they wanted to abrogate rights, they had to do so legally through an act like the War Measures Act. Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.
How I Got Arrested and Abused at the G20 in Toronto, Canada [backofthebook.ca]
Re: (Score:1)
s/Canada/Ontario
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it would have been different in any other Canadian city. Say Calgary, for example. They sent their cops to the G20 in Toronto to help out:
The officers, who are from the Calgary police public safety unit, said the Toronto event was a chance for them to practise their crowd-control training.
"We just never have had to use those tactics to that degree in Calgary. It was a fantastic opportunity for us to test them out and show that yeah they really do work," said Pecksen.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/28/g20-calgary-g8-police-security-protest.html [www.cbc.ca]
I think it would have played out pretty much the same in any Canadian city. The times they are a-changin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.
On the upside, it looks like we might see some change come from it - it didn't take long for the police to give up the "mystery cop" who beat up Adam Nobody, for instance.
Sadly, Harper's Conservatives do like stealing the worst pages of the Republican playbook. And until Alberta stops being their bitch-monkeys we won't be rid of them...
Re:I, deal list (Score:5, Informative)
governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other
Nah, Governments shouldn't hoard information at all.
They should only keep "vital" information under wraps for at most 2 years, then make it all public (not hording, hording = "never gonna give you up")
The only exception I can see is for long term military planning. Do we really need to use deceit in our diplomatic affairs? What's wrong with stating our goals and working to those ends? (It's not like we're really confounding our "enemies" by keeping diplomatic secrets).
Unfortunately, under such an "idealist" information policy, everything will just get categorized as "military planning."
You know... Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella, even though most info is not. Hint: ACTA was held under the "national security" umbrella, now it's not; Guess it wasn't a matter of "national security" was it?
Corrupt governments will always hide under the "national security" blanket, even if you rename it to "military planning" or "diplomatic privacy".
Re: (Score:2)
"hoard"
–verb (used without object)
3.
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.
To hoard does not imply to never use.
And of course there are exceptions. This is the reason I called her an idealist in the first place. Idealists see no room for exceptions. They don't live in the real world where perfection is defined not as something with no flaws but as something with as few flaws as we can practicably
Re: (Score:2)
. Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella
National security [wikipedia.org], in particular how it is viewed in the US (and similarly throughout the "Western" world), economic stability and prosperity plays a key role in the modern definition. That is because money, i.e. economic influence and power is the most global resource, that knows and respects basically no boundaries, whereas a foreign military occupation / control is less tolerated in many countries around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.
You seem to have misunderstood what she was saying.
Try reading it this way: "Those who can control the [flow of] information can influence society enormously."
If everyone has access to the same information, no one [entity] can use it to manipulate the public.
Like how frequently [government agency] will prepare a report that gets buried because it conflicts with [other entity]'s agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Four-Star General John Example has just learned of some vital strategic or tactical information in an ongoing conflict. He has two obvious choices: He can keep this information secure and not tell everyone, for however long it takes, or, he
Military security (Score:2)
Military information already has a very short lifespan. Famously, "Flash" messages are sent UNCLAS, because it's more important they arrive now than be kept from the enemy.
Field Marshal Example already makes his information known to the enemy the moment he acts on it. That's why it was such a terrible decision for Winston Churchill to (putatively) consider keeping secret the German plans to bomb Coventry.
Unit war diaries are released a few years after the war is over, and even the anal British unclassif
Re: (Score:2)
No, by her logic we all should have the same information, and have the same ability to manipulate and resist manipulation.
I'd class it along with normal business assumption of "a level playing field", rather than an idealist assumption.
To be fair, it can be arbitrarily hard to level a playing field, especially when one side owns a bulldozer, but one does try.
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stoddart is right on Utopian Solutions (Score:3)
They start out looking good, until some entity comes along and starts wringing profit or control (one & the same?) out of a new 'utopian innovation'.
That is what happened for a long time with Windows where Microsoft essentially dictated a lot of what and how things were done in personal computing or how FAST they progressed.
Level playing fields are hard to maintain in anarchistic society. The same can be said for all powerful central government or dictators.
Competition on a 'level playing field' seems to be one of the best antidotes to monopolies. But is isn't easy to decide what is fair. Luckily we have some solid heads in government that realize they have the responsibility to do the right thing for the average citizen rather than the labor unions and powerful corp. lobbies.
Re: (Score:3)
She's done more than just the Facebook thing. That's really just the most prominent example. And yes, for all of us. She's not concerned with just protecting a certain segment of the population, or even "just Canadians." If she sees an issue that she can try and do something about, she actually tries to do something, and that something is usually in the interests of "the little guy," rather than corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook knows nothing about me.
Are you that sure that nobody you know has given them your email address or in any other way shared information about you with them? Tagging photos of you seems to be the next most popular way to give them information about you but there may be more.
Re: (Score:3)
No, according to a eHow guide. They let you enter any text as your friend's name, and even ask you his/her email address: http://i.ehow.com/images/a05/l6/7p/add-tags-facebook-photos-1.5-800X800.jpg [ehow.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook knows nothing about me.
Advertising Algorythm:
"This user seems to love getting Poked and seems pretty ignorant, let's display advertisements about poking osama bin laden and how many triangle ads"
I'm starting to hate the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
-Oz
Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (Score:3, Informative)
"I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
-Oz" -
Ok, then YOU of all people, want to read this (not selling anything here, HOSTS files free & you already have one (you just have to fill your OS' copy of your HOSTS file w/ the right data to stop a lot of the problems you complain of online, & reputable + reliable sources for currently updated HOSTS files are below)):
16++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock
Re: (Score:2)
... and of course, one good rant deserves another.
Albeit an interesting and informative rant.
And long. With emphasis.
Good-o!
Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol! (Score:4, Informative)
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
Re: (Score:1)
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
What the hell does logging into Slashdot prove? Why don't you tell us your real name an address? Then I guess we'll need to see some financial records, and do a quick background check, you know, to make sure you are legit and not on the take.
Attach your account... now that's some real authenticity. So we can judge based post history whether to label an account "good" or "bad"? Rich.
Because if _anything_ can lend more weight to my words, it's what I wanted you to hear me say yesterday. [voice of Ca
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Touchy touchy. I didn't put AC down, or insult AC; I just asked why not login? Easy question. A good answer would be "too lazy", and I would certainly think that was valid. Another great answer would be "I just like posting AC". Of course, frothing and ranting is always an excellent response that is readily accepted for entertainment value if nothing else.
Logging in doesn't prove anything. It's just a community thing and helps to put into context what you say by indexing other comments.
No need f
Re: (Score:1)
you see this time your host file trick was posted at the right place and it got modded up. There is no conspirator against you, you just suck at choosing the right post to reply to
Re: (Score:2)
12.) You don't have the sourcecode to Adblock.
That's absurd. If you are running Adblock, then you do have the source to Adblock. The by design the XPI format is just a form of a zip file (specifically it is based on the jar specification, in that it has a META-INF folder with metadata, much like the ODF format).
Inside an XPI file is almost always[1] a collection of HTML, XML, and JavaScript files, along with a few images, and maybe a DTD or two. That is the source code of the extension[2]. Adblock is no exception to that.
Footnotes:
[1] It is possible to
Re: (Score:2)
I was not trying to dispute your argument, but merely correct that one point. Nothing about the others jumped out at me as being incorrect.
Personally, I'd rather not interfere with the DNS lookups, even for ad hosters, and adblock works just fine for my browsing purposes, but for other people Host files may indeed be a better solution.
Re:Toolbars (Score:3)
They're in all the Java update wizards for one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I think for the Average Joe, using something running iOS or a barely-maintained copy of Windows instead of a tightly secured OS and browser, the negatives of using the Internet at all will soon only be slightly overshadowed by the positives, enough to keep them surfing and buying.
It's what happens in any oligopolistic industry, and look at what's happened in the affected areas - there are one or two big players and a bunch of little also-rans. Google for search and advertising, Facebook for social netw
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu is as customizable as any other distro, it just isn't designed with it in mind, like eg. Arch is.
Re: (Score:1)
-Oz
Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the problem is a lot bigger than the internet. It looks to me that the whole cultural vision that started with the European enlightenment has largely run its course, at least in North America. I can't comment on Europe, since I haven't been there recently. Its not that we don't have freedom - in many ways we have more now than ever. Its that the fire has gone out somehow, and its just momentum that's carrying us forward. The ideal of freedom was always pretty corrupt, a matter of freedom to enslave other people or steal their land. Now that corruption has overtaken it.
Not to be all gloom and doom: there will be another enlightenment. But I don't see it happening immediately. In America, the most ambitious and talented people seem to be recent immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe. And it doesn't seem that most of the Asians think or care very much about freedom, at least not yet.
Re: (Score:3)
So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead?
You know, people need money to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead? You know, people need money to survive.
The sad thing is, it's not that expensive to get the "free" services these days. If you're online, your ISP probably already provides you with email accounts. I spend ~10 a month for external hosting, and that gives me all the email addresses, webspace, and other net-goodies I'll ever need.
Re: (Score:2)
Hows about you work on projects that make use freer rather than further confine or track us???
There's not as much easy money in our freedom and privacy.
(Decapitalized to get around the stupid filter...)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
-Oz
Wow.
You do understand, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Pandora's box was opened. There is no going back.
You don't have privacy online. Stop treating the internet like you do.
You can guard yourself against stuff, using ad blockers, etc. But that won't give you privacy back.
Why? Because it's gone. Online privacy said "so long, thanks for all the fish".
I supposed before the internet, you thought you had privacy when you used your credit card? guess what, you didn't. While your actions aren
Not private enough? (Score:2, Funny)
I've always thought that our privacy commisioner's identity should be unknown. Maybe he/she could appear on TV in a hood, speaking through a voice scrambler.
can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary? (Score:1)
The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold'
What's with the cheap ad hominem that wasn't in the original article? Unless they were under 18, they're not boys, just like she's not a "girl".
Also, why does it matter that she's a woman, and they're men? Again, it wasn't in the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of the coaching Zuck has received recently on how to act in an interview, based on his actions in public he is most definitely a "boy" even if his age is over 18.
Re: (Score:3)
What's with the poor reading comprehension?
Paragraph 9, words 20 through 23.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's malicious intent and there's loose English. Unless there's some reason to suspect that the wording is i
Re: (Score:2)
the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshit (Score:2)
"went up against Facebook for all of us" (Score:1)
No. Not for all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually for anyone who's friends gave up personal data on facebook, and thereby exposed them to snooping. See "transitive trust" (;-))
--dave
So, is she married to the reporter or what? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.
My read of it was that the lunch anecdote was meant to reinforce that she takes the rules seriously (even the minor, easily excusable ones). It's a desirable trait in someone who's job it is to enforce rules. (Contrast with a local story about cops being caught driving in their patrol cars, coffee cup in one hand and cell phone in the other.)
Thank goodness - (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)