The scourge of geo-tagging

Sad but true.

I generally avoid apps which reveal my location and I disable geo-tagging on any apps I do use.  I think I’m less paranoid risk-averse than I used to be about this stuff but I prefer to try and stay reasonably un-trackable.  

I fear it’s a losing battle, though.

Found here at How to Geek 02/06/12

Social media and location tracking - more un‘appiness

From Digits – a blog from the Wall Street Journal 31/03/12:

The developer of a controversial mobile app that used data from Facebook and Foursquare to reveal the location of nearby women defended its intentions Saturday after drawing a firestorm of criticism over privacy concerns.

On Saturday, Foursquare cut off access to the “Girls Around Me” app that made it possible to view the location of women on a map and their publicly available data and photographs from Facebook. A number of blogs ... question[ed] ... whether the app encourages stalking.

Oh surely not. You can’t possibly be suggesting the internet can be used for spurious ends and that location tracking and prolific (and careless) social media use constitutes a privacy risk? What’s the world coming to?

The Russian app developer, i-Free Innovations, fired back with a strongly worded statement sent to The Wall Street Journal, calling it “unethical to pick a scapegoat to talk about the privacy concerns. We see this wave of negative as a serious misunderstanding of the apps’ goals, purpose, abilities and restrictions.”

I-Free said “Girls Around Me” only provides data that is publicly available on Foursquare and Facebook.

Not the well-worn, ‘guns don’t kill it’s the people who pull the trigger’ argument? Yep, that old chestnut.

Notably, the developer repeatedly made the case that the app’s intention was simply to help people discover public venues nearby. This despite the name of the app, “Girls Around Me,” and the fact that its promos show women in provocative poses.

Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of provocative. I don’t think there was much doubt that those ladies were ‘open for business’. Ahem.

So was this name chosen to grab attention or does it speak to the true intentions behind the app? If the latter, perhaps it should be renamed to ‘booty tracker. It might be an interesting Law Actually product to follow on from the Fireometer.

Here’s a potential mock-up.

Still, that leaves the app name open to accusations of sexism. I nearly suggested an even blunter name.  Oh don’t look at me like that. It’s nothing worse than what tacitly goes on in bars across the country every night of the week.

I’m long past beating the ‘don’t you care about privacy’ drum so I’m not going to attempt to wheel those arguments out again now.  Given the fact that app stores will drop this like a stone, I don’t think many of the broader issues will have chance to be aired anyway.  Besides, doesn’t Facebook give users enough opportunity to flirt with old acquaintances/colleagues and hook up illicit (and guilt-ridden) delight?

FWIW, I don’t enable each and every app on my phone to track my location and I struggle to understand why people actively opt in to some of those services that offer tracking. The cons simply outweigh the pros making it a non-starter. And society has got enough harassment worries without giving people yet another reason to look over their shoulder on the way home.

Sexting dos and don’ts (yep, they exist... apparently)

From Motherboard.tv 09/06/11:

Obviously everyone knows what sexting is, but I would just like to explain it because I send these articles to my grandmother, and I don’t want to have to break down sexting to her face-to-face.

I don’t think anybody’s grandmother needs to know what sexting is. If she wants to swap X-rated polaroids with the rest of the church congregation that’s her business, but camera phones are just too much for the over 60s to cope with – particularly when there’s nakedness involved.

Basically, you take about a 100 pictures of your a*s in cute underwear and then one comes out good so you text it to a dude. ... The whole point of sexting is that as soon as the recipient gets it, they will speed over to your house for some hot sex.

As with any type of social exchange, there is a certain etiquette that needs to be followed.

Oh really?

For starters, don’t send a sext to someone who might not be down.

“not be down” ... I’ve no idea what this means.  I’m guessing it’s ‘up for it’ but I might be wrong.  Remember: I’m the chap who had to Google Andro’s use of the term “pwned” (something I still don’t fully understand) and, more recently, “fraped”.

If you want to test the waters, say something like, “do you like me? Y or N.” If they respond in a negative way, just pretend that you are drunk at a party and someone stole your phone.

Hold up: just because someone likes you, it doesn’t mean to say they want their phone polluted with an impromptu up-close-and-personal shot of your genitalia. That’s just not cricket.

When sending a picture, make sure it’s not trashy. I knew a kid whose ratty girlfriend sent him pictures of her [... you can read the rest of the this sentence over at motherboard.tv ;-) It made me chuckle. ].

Really? Can sexting ever NOT be trashy? Isn’t that part of the appeal?

Sexting is a dangerous game sometimes, but it’s always worth it. You can’t expect to get d**k pics if you don’t send out some artsy shots of your boobs strategically covered with suds during a bubble bath photo shoot.

…said the contract law lecturer to his class, trying to find a modern day example of quid pro quo in action. 

Children to be fingerprinted as part of library loan process

From The Telegraph 28/05/10:

Students in Manchester are having their thumbprints digitally transformed into electronic codes, which can then be recognised by a computer program.

Under the scheme, pupils swipe a bar code inside the book they want borrow then press their thumb on to a scanner to authorise the loan. Books are returned in the same way.

But critics said they were “appalled” at the system, developed by Microsoft which is also being trialled in other parts of the country.

“This is quite clearly appalling,” said Phil Booth, national coordinator of NO2ID, a privacy campaign group.

“For such a trivial issue as taking out of library books the taking of fingerprints is way over the top and wrong.

He added: “The money for such a system could be spent on actual school resources. How about some more books for the library instead?

Things aren’t that simple, of course. If resources are being directed at monitoring loaned books . Potentially, this system could allow for the school library loan processes to be automated to a far greater extent than they are currently.

Overall, I’d say this one isn’t quite as ludicrous as it initially appears. The idea of substituting a library card for a finger print is convenient – particularly for kids. 

"We have researched this scheme thoroughly. It is a biometric recognition system and no image of a fingerprint is ever stored. It is a voluntary system,” she said.

"The thumbprint creates a mathematical template. All parents have been written to and we have told them what the system is all about. From the responses we have had there has been overwhelming support."

If I were a parent, I don’t think I’d have an issue with this.  Moreover, children in schools all around the country are already fingerprinted as part of the payment system for school dinners.  I think NO2ID should focus on frying bigger fish quite frankly.

Facebook, Grooming and the Regulatory Mix

From the Guardian 09/03/10:

Senior police officers clashed with the UK's most-used social networking site today, accusing Facebook of ignoring worrying trends that it is providing a safe haven for predatory paedophiles by refusing to sign up to a "panic button" for children and young people.

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit (Ceop), was joined by the country's lead officer on homicide to tackle the site about its repeated refusal to sign up to a key safety practice adopted by many other similar websites.

The American-owned site has 23 million active users in the UK but refuses to display an official "panic button" that links users directly to Ceop to report suspected activities by predatory paedophiles.

Chapman, a convicted double rapist, posed as a young man called Peter Cartwright on Facebook and spent time grooming Ashleigh before the pair exchanged mobile phone numbers and agreed to meet. Ashleigh was raped and suffocated by Chapman, who dumped her body in a field near Sedgefield in County Durham last October.

Facebook has refused repeated requests by Ceop to include a panic button on its site. Information from the button is used to build intelligence reports on suspects which can become part of police investigations into paedophiles, rapists and violent individuals.

User education is key here. I’ve propounded the idea for greater use of panic button functionality before but that’s only part of the story.

Young, naive users are doing exactly what Ashleigh Hall did all the time. Re-examining the dangers of social networking at a grass roots level is what is needed – and exactly why I’ve been calling for online safety to be made part of PSE (or whatever it’s called in schools now) for ages.

There are also greater societal and parental issues brought into stark focus by cases like this – and better education of the risks is crucial here, too.

A more pro-active, ex ante means of regulating these situations must start with user education. While other elements of the regulatory mix can be added into the pot – such as code and law, from a Lessigian standpoint - a strong foundation of user education remains vital.

While profiling stalkers and groomers is a very important cog in the overall regulatory machine, over-reliance on it can also result in the ‘Fisher-Price Fallacy’ – the false sense of security that users are lured into by cloaking technology from which potentially serious harm can flow with a benign and innocent user interface. ‘Bad’ or ‘false’ security is worse than no security at all.

If user education breeds good judgement in society, that has got to be made a number one priority. Otherwise tragic stories like this will continue unchecked.

Facebook, Privacy, Risks – you know what’s coming

From Outlaw.com 21/07/09:

Jennifer Stoddart's office has investigated the social networking website's use of personal information and has found that Facebook is not clear enough about how users can control their information or restrictive enough in restricting other companies' access to it.*

The Commissioner's office said that the company needed to be more transparent.

"Social networking sites can be a wonderful way to connect. They help us keep up with friends and share ideas and information with people around the globe," said assistant commissioner Elizabeth Denham. It is important for these sites to be in compliance with the law and to maintain users’ trust in how they collect, use and disclose our personal information*.”

The investigation found that users were told on Facebook how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them*. Only deleting accounts actually removes personal information from Facebook's servers.

* My emphasis

Seeing as I haven’t engaged in any Facebook-bashing for a while, I thought I’d throw this post up. This topic actually reminds me of a paper I wrote for a competition earlier this year concerning the future of social networking services and the privacy of their respective users. Alas, I didn’t win though still believe I made some excellent arguments throughout (it was probably a touch too forward-thinking and conceptual for them).

In it I argued that for social networking services and privacy to co-exist in any meaningful way together, the first and crucial step was to raise awareness and educate users about the risks they faced and the tools at their disposal to manage those risks.

With informed users, I reckoned, not only would there be less online stupidity with people failing to appreciate the dangers and the full effects of their actions but it would allow for the harnessing of market forces to successfully regulate social networking providers. In short, where users were well-informed enough to choose a service which offered safe connectivity, prized security and respected users’ privacy, the respective social networking services would compete with one another on this front; security would become less of a trade-off with functionality and more of a function in its own right. For the average, less technically au fait user, well, they would be influenced by those in the know and the herd theory would operate to result in an exodus of users from services which didn’t pass muster on the security/privacy front.

There was a lot more to the paper than that, obviously, and it was heavily weighted on the side of regulatory theory rather than black letter law – perhaps that’s why I didn’t win – but I think many of the ideas I advanced are still good. I may publish it myself via Law Actually given time.

25 things I hate about Facebook

Compared to last year, I’ve been Facebook-bashing considerably less of late so when I came across this gem earlier, it was an obvious ‘must post’.  Enjoy.

Privacy Law – In Need of a Legislative Broom?

From Outlaw 03/02/09:

Parliament will investigate privacy law in the UK and may give the law a 'nudge', Justice Minister Jack Straw has said. A select committee of MPs will look into how the law has developed and how it is being implemented by courts, he said.

How has the law developed? I can think of some fairly colourful responses to that. For the present, however, I think the following would all be particularly apt:

· Slowly  · Painfully  · Inconsistently  · Awkwardly

· Incoherently 

There are a bunch of other words I could include but a list has to stop somewhere. Of course, many of these descriptions are also applicable to how the law has been implemented by the courts.

“Historically, the UK has not had a law of privacy, but one has emerged in recent years that has combined confidentiality laws covering the exchange of information with human rights laws protecting the right to a private life.

Courts have ruled in several cases that the publication of information violates these laws, and
these judgments will form the basis of future rulings.

That case law was ferociously attacked last year by powerful Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre [in the aftermath of Mosley v NGN Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777] who condemned the fact that it had developed through the courts and not through Parliament.

Straw has told Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, though, that a committee of MPs will look into the development of the law.”

Recent developments in privacy rights in the context of ‘celebrity newsgathering’ have illustrated that the law has now swung to opposite end of the spectrum whereby the courts have been inclined to attach more weight to the individual’s right to privacy than to the right to freedom of expression for the press. This change has happened relatively quickly: in 2002 both the Flitcroft and Theakston cases saw a ‘naming and shaming approach’ for celebrities caught in compromising situations robustly endorsed by the courts. Since Campbell and now Mosley, however, the approach has clearly changed.

The current test which evolved out the wealth of jurisprudence in this area essentially involves examining whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the material circumstances. If that is the case, there is then a need to move on to balance the right of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR with the right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10. An inherent part of this balancing act is determining whether there is countervailing public interest that can justify the intrusion.

Mr Justice Eady has come in for a lot of ‘stick’ in recent times – not least in the aftermath of the Mosley decision. Eady J has had heard the majority of high-profile cases in this area and because of this, it’s no surprise that he was very much at target in Dacre’s scathing attack last year.

The Times notes how far-reaching Mr Justice Eady’s contributions to this area of law are perceived to be:

“Mr Dacre told the audience at the Society of Editors’ annual conference in Bristol that the judge’s “amoral” judgments, in this and other defamation and libel cases, were “inexorably and insidiously” imposing a privacy law on the press.”

Moreover, “[Dacre accused Eady J] of bringing in a privacy law by the back door: the judge, he said, had used the Human Rights Act against the age-old freedom of newspapers to expose moral shortcomings of people in high places.”

So what’s the Justice Minister’s take on privacy?

Again from the Times:

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, one of the Joint Committee members, asked Mr Straw where he stood on privacy: the Mail interview, Lord Lester said, gave the impression that Mr Straw would like to weaken the Human Rights Act, “so as to make it easier for the press to make unwarranted attacks on personal privacy”.

Straw did not say where he stood — other than backing the forthcoming privacy review. But he did indicate support for the Act’s critics. “Those of us keen to ensure that the legacy of the Human Rights Act continues and thrives need to be alive to that criticism — and respond to it,” he said.

The realisation of privacy rights under English law is essentially achieved via a blatant shoehorning of privacy rights into the law of breach of confidence. Have Parliament finally recognised the need for a legislative broom to sweep clean the detritus of confusion which plagues the law relating to privacy?

Without doubt, it’s high time for a review at the very least and considering afresh whether legislating is the way to go. Whether this leads to a ‘Privacy Act’, though, is another matter entirely. Ironically, this area of law has weathered greater uncertainty than it’s currently plagued with and it could be argued the courts are actually demonstrating a greater degree of creativity and recognition of wider societal issues when adjudicating than ever before. For instance, the case of David Murray v Big Pictures Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 446. involving photos taken of J.K. Rowling’s son as well as the application of the Harassment Act 1997 in respect of compromising photos published on an aggrieved former-lover’s Facebook profile illustrate that the jurisprudence is developing in a way that is factoring-in modern technologies and the privacy implications that the internet and social networking brings with it.  The equivalent could certainly not have been said in the early days of wiretapping by police nor in how the courts dealt with early forms of harassment via telephone.

Now, though, privacy issues seem to rank much higher on the list of priorities.  Currently, privacy concerns have been elevated to an all time high by virtue of the rise of the internet as a publishing medium, the Web 2.0 phenomenon and society’s voracious appetite for celebrity gossip which has fuelled the ever-more aggressive and intrusive behaviour of the press.  Also, in direct response to the Mosley case, perhaps it’s been recognised that the jurisprudence has developed in a direction which is now no longer deemed suitable and legislation is required to ‘nudge’ it back on track.

The use of the ‘legislative broom’ may help in certain areas to sweep clean and clear up the awkward uncertainty such as the apparent conflating of the right pursuant to Article 10 of freedom of expression with the ‘public interest defence’ in some judgements.  Whether privacy law which is more favourable to the press is the right approach to be taking going forwards, however, seems less clear.

In any event, the Times concludes: If legislation is mooted, then it will be an irony to think that Mr Justice Eady himself — when on the Calcutt committee that reported in 1990 on privacy — favoured a privacy law. The difference is that any new law would not be seeking to curb the press but to free it.