Worst Companies At Protecting User Privacy: Skype, Verizon, Yahoo 113
First time accepted submitter SmartAboutThings writes "Apple and Microsoft are one of the worst companies at protecting our privacy, according to EFF's privacy report. Dropbox, Twitter and Sonic have some of the best scores." "Sonic" is California ISP Sonic.net, which tops the field with the EFF's only 4-star rating. Of ISPs with national presence, ATT and Comcast come in with a single star apiece, and Verizon gets a goose egg.
Good to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good to know... (Score:5, Informative)
Sonic is like the Linux of ISPs. First of all, they run Linux for everything. They refuse to institute a bandwidth cap. They still offer Usenet feeds. Their bonded ASDL service is kick ass (the modems, however, leave something to be desired). It's cheap to buy a dedicated IP address (in fact, I think it's free, now), and you can even setup reverse DNS on your account management page! Basically, best ISP ever.
And now they're in race with AT&T to install fiber in San Francisco.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious about this Dropbox score... didn't they get implicated in their staff having access to everyone's files "for troubleshooting" at one point?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's serious. And don't call hime Shirly.
Apple and Microsoft are one of the worst companies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No-one expected a defence of the Spanish Inquisition.
(There was one great thing about living before the late 20th century: the world had more than one religion, and you could always at least try to escape the hell around you. Now it's capitalism with a strong legal bias toward big business everywhere, so you either comply or you starve. Not much different than 500 years ago, then.)
Re: (Score:2)
"35k out of 80k trials resulted in executions" nothing to see here...
Re: (Score:2)
with executions being closer to 10-20% in some regions
Unfortunately, even culling at these low rates, the witch population has plummeted to near-extinction, calling into question the legitimacy of the sport.
Re: (Score:3)
God help us. I'm pretty sure if Apple and Microsoft ever combined, the universe would explode.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, but they would be searching for your rebel base.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple and Microsoft are one of the worst compan (Score:5, Funny)
You just know it would be rotten to the core.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Applesoft will transition aqua to Metro on all the macs. Can you just imagine the look on the anal Mac users faces? Mass suicide
Re: (Score:2)
To bad you posted AC- I would've up-modded you.
A world of shiny, curvy things that crash every 20 minutes. Cram Linux in there and you can then add the 5 hours of configuration after every crash. The best of all possible worlds.
And then I quit my job and become a pimp.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever they call it, it will be rotten to the core. It already has a seedy reputation as it is and I don't find very appeeling what could stem from such a union.
Re:Apple and Microsoft are one of the worst compan (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Crapintosh?
Re: (Score:1)
Common! There was a joke!
I'm not saying Mac is a crap, I'm saying a Mac from Microsoft would be one!
(Mac users don't have a sense of humor?)
Re: (Score:2)
"There" -> "That"
(there's something like dyslexia for full words?)
Re: (Score:3)
there's something like dyslexia for full words?)
If I can ever get to where you change sigs (slashbugs keeping me out) my new sig is going to read "Illiterate? Write today for free help!"
Re: (Score:2)
Mail me.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you beat me to it!
Re: (Score:2)
Can we settle this as a draw? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we care
About our bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, the first product of Applesoft could be a BASIC Interpreter [wikipedia.org]!
Amusing that name has actually been used by the two companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing that name has actually been used by the two companies.
Not when you know the history of BASIC. [wikipedia.org] Wozniac was 16 when BASIC was developed at Dartmouth, Gates was only 11. It was the perfect language for a tiny computer like the Apple 1 or the Commodore Pet (which iinm used MS BASIC)
Gads! Where's your grammar checker? (Score:3, Insightful)
First time accepted submitter SmartAboutThings writes
"Apple and Microsoft are one of the worst companies at protecting our privacy, according to EFF's privacy report. Dropbox, Twitter and Sonic have some of the best scores."
"Sonic" is California ISP Sonic.net, which tops the field with the EFF's only 4-star rating. Of ISPs with national presence, ATT and Comcast come in with a single star apiece, and Verizon gets a goose egg.
All shilling for Sonic aside, I'm pretty sure Apple and Microsoft are two companies.
Freenet and private "Twitter" - Sone (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, for real privacy we should become holders of the data.
Freenet is quite cool with privacy&anonimity (slow and high latency, but most private solution I know).
And Sone plugin offers anonymous "twitter" that can not be censored not tracked because
everyone holds the data [parts] mirrored on their p2p nodes,
and only YOU the publisher have the PRIVATE KEYs to your identity, same as with ssh or gpg
no one can confiscate that (especially when they can't find you - therefore the anonymity part,
problem, po
DFS Systems (Score:2)
The main problem with DFS systems like freenet is bandwidth use. As the ISPs ratchet down what you get each month it will outright kill options like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Cloud storage in general is useless when there are bandwidth caps, whether DFS or not. "Cloud storage" is only useful as an intermediary to share small amounts of files and that's it.
Nitpick: DFS=distributed file system. "DFS system" = distributed file system system
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, i know what DFS means, and I'm talking about a form of DFS in the cloud here as the only real solution. ( read up on freenet if you don't understand what i mean )
Re: (Score:2)
I know all about freenet. My point is that if you have bandwidth caps, transferring data in any meaningful amounts can lead to significant costs at the end of the month due to caps.
Until this business about caps ends, the only actual use for DFS and other "cloud" schemes is for a way-station for small amounts of files sent to/from your (or someone else's) phone or mobile device, which has a 2 or 3 GB monthly cap for total traffic - up and down, combined.
And when it comes to home broadband, try setting up h
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that if you have bandwidth caps, transferring data in any meaningful amounts can lead to significant costs at the end of the month due to caps.
Umm i thought i said that myself, that DFS is the answer to all the other problems and then the only way to stop it is via caps. Perhaps i didn't say that but i thought i did..
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know, at this point I'll say yes.
--
BMO
I call B.S. on this report (Score:4, Informative)
The EFF is grading companies based on the following criteria (quoted verbatim):
1) Tell users about data demands: a public commitment to inform users when their data is sought by the government.
2) Be transparent about government requests: transparency about when and how often companies hand data to the government.
3) Fight for users’ privacy rights in the courts
4) Fight for users’ privacy in Congress
Criteria #1 and #2 might be important, but more for people who live at the edge of the law or might be suspected (possibly wrongly) of ties to terrorist groups than to the average citizen.
Criteria #3 and #4 are peripherally important to citizens but are tactically important to the EFF.
When I think about user privacy on the Internet, I think of the aggregation and analysis of data on each person (anonymously, or identified by name) based on tracking cookies, social networking and forum posts, location and call data, online and credit card purchase history, and other information obtained via Internet search. The four categories the EFF is analyzing would be far down on the list.
Re:I call B.S. on this report (Score:5, Insightful)
Criteria #1 and #2 are important to everyone because of the very thing you mentioned in the statement. People wrongly suspected of ties to terrorist groups or what the US government considers terrorist groups. I for one am appalled that the government can keep a blanket request for data secret (without a warrant... thanks PATRIOT Act!) and not only that, keep what you're being investigated of secret... They can demand your papers and documents but not tell you why? How is that not a violation of the Constitution? This isn't a Democrat/Republican problem... this is a GOVERNMENT problem. Our problem is the morons want the government to coddle them and keep them from going hungry on one end, yet turn a blind eye when the government invades their privacy and tells them what they can and cannot drink or eat.. (Bloomberg... you cheese-eating fuck-monkey, I'm looking at you.) And god forbid you criticize the government or president. You're a dirty terrorist if you think the government sucks. Yeah, right. Call me a terrorist then, you cocksucking asshats.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the entire process. Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:3)
First, they came for the terrorists, but I wasn't a terrorist, so I didn't say anything. Next, they came for the pirates, but I wasn't a pirate, so I didn't say anything...
This is solely about governmental privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
The EFF did nothing at all to consider privacy in general, and in particular with regards to businesses and other private entities. The chart is only about how the companies are interacting with governmental bodies (e.g. Congress, law enforcement). Facebook is widely regarded as being horrible when it comes to privacy, but it's because they keep abusing their access to everyone's information by sharing it with third-parties, using it to follow them around the Internet, and failing to follow the settings the user has indicated.
Even companies that have been more benign have problems. Dropbox, for instance, had a notable bug earlier this year or late last where anyone could access anyone else's account. Their employees also have access to everyone's data and can read it at any time unless you encrypt it yourself. Where is the consideration for those sorts of factors?
I'm far more concerned with companies sharing my information for profit than I am with companies sharing my information with the government. You can support privacy laws in Washington all you want, but when the rubber hits the road if you're selling me out for a quick buck, I don't want to be providing you with my information.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly spot-on. This only addresses a single narrowly-defined privacy issue: What has this company done viz-a-viz government requests to access user information? Google scores rather well on this scale, for example, even though they basically make their income by monetizing your personal information.
And, even with regards to this single issue, I find it lacking. It is good when a company lets a user know the government has requested their data; but I find it more important when a company has fought in cour
Re:This is solely about governmental privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Google doesn't share any of your information with advertisers or other third-parties; their privacy policy is very clear on this. It's also totally obvious from a business perspective, because handing off that information to advertisers would be handing out a key business advantage for free. Goggle is not stupid.
As for government data requests, they publish the exact numbers and the percentage of requests they complied with. Based on the numbers it's pretty clear they fight many of the requests they get (e.g. all 42 requests from the Russian government have been denied this year). You can look at the numbers yourself: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/
Re:This is solely about governmental privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Even though I'm confident you're either trying to be funny or are trolling, I'll respond in detail for the benefit of anyone else who might be ignorant on this topic.
To cherry-pick just a small handful of examples from Slashdot's archives:
1) Tracking us: Beacon [slashdot.org], more tracking [slashdot.org], requests for FTC audit regarding cookie usage and privacy [slashdot.org], even more tracking [slashdot.org], violating European laws by tracking on third-party sites [slashdot.org], filing a patent to track us on other sites [slashdot.org], not answering Congressional questions regarding whether they are tracking users still [slashdot.org], $15 bn lawsuit for illegal tracking [slashdot.org]
2) Sharing with third-parties: Facebook Sharing [slashdot.org], sharing pics with advertisers [slashdot.org], three US Senators telling Facebook to quit sharing data [slashdot.org], sharing IDs with third parties so they can be tracked [slashdot.org], home addresses and phone numbers [slashdot.org], a bug exposed millions of accounts of personal details [slashdot.org]
3) Automatically making data public: News Feed [slashdot.org], Facebook Connect [slashdot.org], crap like this [slashdot.org], settled with the FTC after making information that was set to private go public on numerous occasions, and agreed to not do it again [slashdot.org]
There are dozens, if not hundreds of more examples of Facebook being slimy or criminal in their behavior if you just do a search for "Facebook privacy" here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is solely about governmental privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention that Dropbox are quick to give full access to your Dropbox to any third party app developer who sets "full access" in their dev token - you can't override that when you install said app.
Summary is unsurprisingly complete shit. (Score:1)
The article hardly even qualifies as such - a quick scan ADD-friendly graphic (and the results in the post) state that, actually, the worse companies are Skype, Foursquare, Myspace, and Verizon. Microsoft and Apple didn't score highly, but they did score higher than those four.
Gah.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that skype is now owned by microsoft.
Although they represent separate business units and products.
18 companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
18 companies with 4 yes/no checks. Nothing about how the companies use collected user data or how they share it. Complete fail.
How can anyone call this a report?
Re: (Score:1)
Skype? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason Skype has a zero-score is because the EFF's criteria is inadequate. They're all contingent on these companies actually storing and using your data, neither of which Skype does. Skype actually takes it a step further and encrypts all communication. As far as I'm aware, Skype never sees your data, it's just a pipe.
Skype is ahead of all of these companies, as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Skype? (Score:5, Interesting)
Skype probably has a backdoor to allow governments to listen in [h-online.com], although the code is heavily obfuscated to try to prevent people from finding out the details via reverse engineering.
Re: (Score:1)
Skype probably has a backdoor to allow governments to listen in [h-online.com], although the code is heavily obfuscated to try to prevent people from finding out the details via reverse engineering.
Oh, now that it belongs to an American company (the primary desktop software supplier to the U.S. government) you can be SURE Skype calls touching the U.S. are readily monitorable by the government. Just assume that for now.
Re: (Score:1)
it's just a pipe.
don't you mean a series of tubes?
Re: (Score:2)
It is now that it's been used as a word.
go sonic (Score:3)
I know the article is meaningless, but sonic is just great.
I've never had a provider before who
- consistently answers the phone for tech support, and provides honest, useful advice and really address problems
- is willing to own issues with the local loop provider
- consistently ups my capacity and lowers my rate just because
- encourages me to run an open access point
- takes an unmitigated pro-consumer stand wrt net legislation at every opportunity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What's with the Google logo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is the Google logo used as the icon for this article? Why not Apple or Microsoft?
How the FUCK... (Score:1)
How the FUCK does Dropbox get a good score?
Their incompetent piece of dogshit CEO made a mistake that let ANYBODY log into ANY account with ANY password, and he COVERED IT THE FUCK UP.
And beyond that, the utterly worthless and incompetent asshole berated any customer who complained in any way about this massive, massive fuckup, and the subsequent coverup.
Beyond that, the ridiculously dishonest and untrustworthy cunts over at dropbox FLAT OUT FUCKING LIED about encryption, claiming they encrpypted data that
Re: (Score:1)
So... I just logged into your account on Slashdot.
Sonic? (Score:2)
Wrong question asked (Score:1)
We need to know which companies are the most dangerous with respect to maintaining our privacy. The danger would be a function of how much personal information they have, their policies for sharing, the risk that they would/could change their policies towards being more lax, the risk of intrusion, the risk of subpoena, the risk of socially engineered attacks.
Re: (Score:1)
Google tells you, that's the difference.
Re: (Score:1)
The survey is not about what kind of data they harvest and how the companies use it internally.
It is about their policy about how they handle data requests.
stupid survey (Score:2)
Apple is not an ISP, Sonic.net does not sell computers, so the sort of info that Sonic would be asked for is going to be different to the sort of info requested from Google or MS. I can see where they are coming from, I just question the methodology. Also there is a difference between complying with the law, whatever you may think of it, and obstructing it.
Yahoo! (Score:2)
I can vouch for Yahoo! I signed into Hotjobs some years ago, as well as some other job sites, and the result is a flood of junk mail in my inbox - not counting any mail from those sites. Yahoo! does one of the worst jobs in figuring out spam and simply deleting it, even after it's told to treat certain recipients as junk. And b'cos Yahoo! limits the #filters one can have, one can't even set enough junk filters w/o affecting the other rules one may need for processing the mail.
I do have different accoun
remember when dropbox turned off passwords? (Score:2)
how the fuck can Dropbox get a good rating when they've consistently undervalued the importance of my data to stay private? shutting off passwords for all users during maintenance, and failing to turn them back on was simply a human blunder - but a signal that security is an afterthought.
re: Sonic (Score:1)
I used Sonic.net from the first year they opened until about 2006 when I had to move out of their service area. I had the pleasure of working in their data center several times whilst working for a local peak oil think tank. Although many things can (and are) be said about the owner, Dane Jasper, he has created the best "mom & pop" ISP in California hands down. The support is amazing, they have a variety of different broadband products, including fiber in some areas (you may remember an article recently
I use Sonic.net (Score:1)
I can safely say they have the best customer service of any company I've dealt with in the past 10 years.
Love them, love them, love them, love them. Can't imagine the internet without them. I was never happier than the day I ditched Speakeasy (then owned by Best Buy) and got Sonic.net.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
Time [time.com]
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
statements thate are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand do not require a rebuttal
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, because you pick clauses out of context, ignoring, for instance, the clause in the same ToS that explains that Google's use of your information within the broad permissions granted is restricted by the options chosen within each particular Google service related to privacy, which, combined with the clause you point to, make it so that you are agreeing to give Google permission to do ex
Re: (Score:1)
What does any of that have to do with privacy? Okay, the real name policy I suppose, but when you sign up, *you know* that you are putting your name out there for everyone to see. It's not a case of information that you THOUGHT was being kept private is suddenly being divulged to 3rd parties.