Things that caught our eye
Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that it does not violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to compel a criminal defendant to unlock a cellphone with a fingerprint. Whereas unlocking with a pass code requires the defendant to provide personal knowledge, a fingerprint is not considered testimonial because it is biometric information similar to a DNA sample.
The move towards fingerprint secured cellphones was with the goal of providing more security to the owner. This ruling however indicates that while the advanced technology provides more security, it may not provide more privacy.
Read more at: Police can require cellphone fingerprint, not pass code.
iPhone, privacy, Technology
Things that caught our eye
The University of New Mexico’s Computer Sciences department has developed a comic book art style game to address the issue of privacy on the internet. In their research paper, the researchers introduce the game ‘Immaculacy’:
“This interactive story takes the player on a journey, through a world in which personal information is in constant jeopardy. The player is placed in the role of an eighteen-year-old girl, Sydney Carlisle.”
(…)
“Immaculacy is an interactive story that immerses the player in a slightly dystopian world littered with privacy issues. Events unfold in the narrative based on hidden scores kept during gameplay and calculated based on specific decisions made by the player. Ultimately, we hope to create an engaging environment that helps players consider the decisions they are making in their own lives. We give the player experience with many privacy issues through their explorations of a world of hyper surveillance and connectivity.”
While the target audience for the game is very broad: “[i]n general, any smartphone owner or person who uses the Internet on a regular basis can benefit from and enjoy this game”, the rating of the game could reach up to ‘Teen’. The researchers expect that this might be possible “due to the psychological nature of the game.”
The game has been submitted to the CHI Play Student Game Design Competition held last week, for other competitors have a look at the competition’s website.
The game itself also has a website: EXIT | Immaculacy: A Game of Privacy.
Image:
Children, game, privacy
Things that caught our eye
Here’s some important news from Eastern Europe that finally reached the US media: according to NPR, about 100,000 anti-government protesters gathered in Budapest on Tuesday to oppose a proposed plan to tax the use of internet. The Hungarian government says the tax is only extending an existing tax on telephones in order to address the growing share of communication that is taking place on the internet. However, the move is perceived as the government’s attempt to stifle voices from the opposition.
Read more on The New York Times.
Things that caught our eye
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EUDPS), who “is an independent supervisory authority devoted to protecting personal data and privacy and promoting good practice in the EU institutions and bodies”, recently gave a speech in Mauritius on account of the 36th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners . In his speech (PDF), the EUDPS Peter Hustinx, dealt with the difficulties of enforcing privacy laws which are restricted to territorial borders in a world of “borderless Internet technology”.
Two of the examples he gave of problems in this area I would like to highlight here. In relation to the Internet of Things (IoT) he mentioned:
“[W]e have heard at this conference that very few objects or devices for the future IoT are being devised with serious attention for privacy implications. Therefore, boxes with diverse gadgets, just being sent off to other parts of the world, without any thought given or information provided on privacy aspects, are simply a disaster happening in slow motion.”
Futhermore, in relation to the Google Spain Case and the Right To Be Forgotten, on which Stefan Kulk & Rehana Harasgama here at the iii wrote earlier, the EUDPS also had some comments:
[T]he highly critical and sometimes aggressive reactions to the recent CJEU judgment in the Google Spain case show a disconnect between the assumption that available information can be re-used and the requirement that processing of personal information must always be legitimate and may be subject to rights of erasure or objection by the data subjects.
The remainder of the speech deals with questions on feasibility of privacy in a borderless world, which provides for an interesting status quo of what is done in this area.
Read the full speech here.
Interesting final note. Peter Hustinx, is currently the EU Data Protection Supervisor, but the procedure for appointing his successor is in full swing. Latest development here is that his current assistant, Giovanni Buttarelli, has received the most votes in the Civil Liberties Committee last week, and will therefore be the most likely successor of Mr. Hustinx for the role of EU Data Protection Supervisor.
Image Credit: “Internet of Things” by Wilgengebroed on Flickr – Cropped and sign removed from Internet of things signed by the author.jpg. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Things that caught our eye
That is what Arabian Business writes. In an exclusive interview with the business magazine, YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley explains why Youtube was targeted by television broadcasters:
“I feel the [broadcasting] industry was making a lot of noise because they’re more scared about losing control, not necessarily just of creation of content, because everyone has a camera in their hand, but also the distribution of that content.”
One series of cases that jumps to mind is the Viacom v. YouTube saga, in which Viacom unsuccessfully sued YouTube for many copyright infringements.
Read the full story here.
copyright, youtube
Things that caught our eye
This past Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig interviewed Edward Snowden on the issue of institutional corruption and the practices of the National Security Agency (NSA). A video of the interview is available below.
Source: YouTube/Harvard Law School.
Things that caught our eye
We’ve seen this before with breastfeeding images, and now the issue is back with childbirth photos. Whether you like it or not, Facebook is exercising its curating powers by removing photos of childbirth. Milli Hill, who heads the organization called the Positive Birth Movement, had her photos removed and her page temporarily banned after posting such images, which violated Community Guidelines. She observes:
“You could argue that this is simply about nudity, but I think there’s more to it. Social media reflects our wider culture’s issue, not with naked women, but with naked women who look real and active as opposed to air-brushed and passive. It also reflects millennia of attempts to suppress women’s power, of which childbirth is perhaps the ultimate expression.”
You can read more about it here: By removing photos of childbirth, Facebook is censoring powerful female images | Milli Hill | Comment is free | theguardian.com.
Things that caught our eye
Gideon Lichfield has one goal for the time being and that is to “Treat the future as real life” by looking at the future via science fiction! It’s a pretty awesome idea if you ask me. Lichfield recently started a fellowhip at the Data & Society Research Institute and the question he is trying to answer is:
“How do you make the extremely complex and multilayered issues that data-based technologies raise — from how sensor data can upend urban planning to what happens when nobody’s DNA is private any more — comprehensible and meaningful for the people whose lives they’ll affect, i.e., absolutely everyone?”
I’m pretty sure this is going to be an interesting development to follow () which is why I thought I’d share. Enjoy!
Things that caught our eye
This may be an unusal news post from our side, but I am fascinated and shocked about the new perks Facebook and Apple are willing to offer women. Because Silicon Valley has come up with an idea to encourage women who pursue their careers and also want to have children. According to a Swiss Newspaper Facebook and Apple are now willing to offer highly qualified academic women incentives – meaning money – to freeze their eggs in order to keep on working. Women are no longer under the pressure to have a baby before they are 40 and can pursue a fruitful and long career in these two companies. Apparently, women have been doing this for a while in the U.S. NBC News says that these two companies are most likely the first to offer this kind of coverage for non-medical reasons. Brigitte Adams, founder of the patient forum Eggsurance.com, said:
“Having a high-powered career and children is still a very hard thing to do.”
“By offering this benefit, companies are investing in women and supporting them in carving out the lives they want.”
Even though I myself believe in women being able to have a great career while at the same time having children, I am not quite sure what kind of message this offer is sending us. It seems like these perks are just another sign from the corporate world telling women that a career and children are two incompatible wishes unless you freeze your eggs – thus postponing actually having children at an early stage in your “work-life”. So women of the world or at least of Silicon Valley (for now) listen up: You can have children, just not straight away!
Enjoy the full story “Perk Up: Facebook and Apple Now Pay for Women to Freeze Eggs” here.
Things that caught our eye
According to the Guardian UK governments are already widely using “voiceprint” ID technology to identify people via their speech. A survey by the Associated Press showed that over 65 million voiceprints have already been saved by governments and companies to date. And the numbers are rising.
[Jay Stanley] added that use of voiceprints by companies to counter fraud had its benefits, but that it came with costs.
Is this another step towards mass surveillance? What does this mean for our privacy rights? Where do we draw the line when it comes to government duties? And what about our right to free speech? Can we no longer exercise it anonymously?
Several phone services rely on guaranteeing privacy to callers – crime hotlines run by police, counselling services, and numbers that people who have suffered domestic violence or other abuse are encouraged to call in the knowledge that their identities will not be compromised, for instance.
For companies “voiceprint” means more customer insight and less effort to gain the information their marketing department needs. But Stanley quite rightly says:
Biometrics are never 100% accurate [and] Are people going to be blacklisted by government institutions because their voice is mistaken for that of a fraudster?
Things that caught our eye
On October 20th, the Canadian House of Commons will vote on the cyberbullying bill (C-13), which is widely seen as controversial because of its privacy implications. The C-13 makes it illegal to post an “intimate image” of another person without that person’s consent. It also gives the police easier access to metadata from online service providers and phone companies, the provision that Canada’s Privacy Commissioner was particularly concerned about. The Bill gives immunity to companies that hand over information. With the support from the majority Conservatives, the bill is expected to pass.
You can read more about it here: Cyberbullying bill inches closer to law despite privacy concerns – Politics – CBC News.
Photo of the Canadian Parliament Made By Maria Azzurra Mugnai
Things that caught our eye
Criticism towards the online ad industry is abound. The lack of transparency in online tracking and targeted advertising is in fact a good reason for concern. Currently it seems that all the power of gathering personal data is in the hands of companies, which are only interested in leading us to click on more “consumption banners”.
Why not change the status quo by understanding how the ad industry works? Floodwatch just caught my eye today. As a Chrome extension it offers:
“tools to help you understand both the volume and the types of ads you’re being served during the course of normal browsing, with the goal of increasing awareness of how advertisers track your browsing behavior, build their version of your online identity, and target their ads to you as an individual.”
Floodwatch’s ultimate aim is to provide users with information about targeted ads to fight back against the tracking and targeting practices of the ad industry.
Things that caught our eye
If you read anything about privacy, encryption, and how your life will unfold through these issues, read this post by Chris Coyne. He offers some cogent arguments about why backdoors to your privacy are a bad idea. He starts by calling out the Washington Post’s Editorial Board for advocating a golden backdoor be built our digital lives. His title: The Horror of a Secure Golden Key.
Things that caught our eye
Over the past year and a bit I’ve been looking at how the digitalization of information and – well – many other things are affecting how we, companies or the government remember and forget things and how law should react to this in order to ensure the right amount of information is remembered respectively forgotten. Not an easy task, as many different perspectives and interests are involved. More…
Children, Education, Google, Memory, Technology
Things that caught our eye
Rob Beschizza at Boing Boing reports that Intel has pulled advertising from the gaming publication site Gamasutra, after the site posted criticism of the GamerGate movement.
Beschizza writes that after Intel was “flooded” with complaints about Gamasutra’s critique of the GamerGate campaign, Intel’s spokesperson Bill Calder confirmed the decision. Calder:
“We take feedback from our customers very seriously especially as it relates to contextually relevant content and placements.”
Beschizza goes on to explain that the GamerGate movement, now infamous for the harassment and threats against Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, also “targeted journalists” critical of the GamerGate cause, including Leigh Alexander of Boing Boing.
Things that caught our eye
Ars Technica reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Arizona’s current anti-revenge porn law on behalf of several bookstores, the American Association of Publishers and the National Press Photographers association, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. They provide a list of sample “actions” that could be criminalized under the new law, to highlight the broad way the law is written, including,
“A college professor in Arizona, giving a lecture on the history of the Vietnam War, projects on a screen the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph, “Napalm Girl,” which shows a girl, unclothed, running in horror from her village.”
or
“A librarian in Arizona includes, in the library’s collection, the book Robert Mapplethorpe and the Classical Tradition: Photographs and Mannerist Prints (Guggenheim Museum Publications 2004), which contains nude images.”
They also cite Michael Bamberger, one of the lead attorneys on the case, to highlight potential First Amendment issues with Arizona’s law:
“This is a supposed revenge-porn statute that does not require revenge”
Our own Stefan Kulk, has also offered a discussion on the role of copyright in the case of the celebrity nude photo hack.
Things that caught our eye
The European Commission published two reports today in which it urges cultural institutions throughout Europe to publish more of their art collection(s) online.
One report [PDF] looks at how to digitise, make accessible and preserve culture online, the second [PDF] report explains how our film heritage can be rescued from rotting cans.
The report on digitisation of culture and preserving it online shows that in recent years there has been an increase in digitisation efforts of art and their publication online. However, the report also notes that the work is far from done:
[O]nly a fraction of Europe’s collections [is] digitised so far (around 12% on average for libraries and less than 3% for films).
The European Commission therefore states that it will continue to monitor the progress in this area and at the same time the Commission encourages further digitisation efforts of cultural heritage. The Commission furthermore suggests that, in order to help finance these initiatives, the European Structural and Investment Funds could be tapped into.
You can find well over 30 million already digitised works of cultural heritage at Europeana.eu. In this online library, you can find among others; classical works of art from the Dutch Rijksmuseum, Diplomatic Documents of Switzerland, and 1262 pieces of 3D Icons. From what we gather, however, the website is not very well known. European Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes even called Europeana “the best cultural collection that no-one has heard of.” Testament to that is that even the aforementioned European Commission report on digitisation uses a picture of Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’ fresco, from wikiart.org on its cover, and not one of Europeana’s versions of the fresco. The reason for this cannot be one of copyright, as many of these Europeana’s versions are Licensed under a Creative Commons licence that would allow their use.
Now, the Commission’s efforts are directed at digitising art within the European Union. A more global approach is taken by Google, with its , in particular the . From the Google Cultural Institute’s :
Museums large and small, classic and modern, world-renowned and community-based from over 40 countries have contributed more than 40,000 high-resolution images of works ranging from oil on canvas to sculpture and furniture. Some paintings are available in ‘gigapixel’ format, allowing you to zoom in at brushstroke level to examine incredible detail.
The advantage of this project is that you can indeed zoom into so far that you are allowed to have a closer look at the painting than you would be able to have in the museum itself. It offers more than just a , where you are given the opportunity to ‘walk’ through the museum and look at the art. This Art Project also allows you to have a look at individually digitised paintings, in great detail.
What is great about these projects, both Europeana and Google’s Art Project, is that they provide access to cultural heritage, for everyone with an internet connection. Therefore, the European Commission’s continued support and urging of more digitisation within the European Union is very welcome.
Picture: Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’, Credit: Wellcome Library, London, CC Licence.
Update: there was a report that the link to the report was broken. The new link to the report is updated accordingly.
Art, Digitisation, Europeana, Google Cultural Institute
Things that caught our eye
Facebook has evaluated the way it does research. Mike Schroepfer, Chief Technology Officer at Facebook, introduced a new framework for the company’s private and public research. Schroepfer:
“We’re committed to doing research to make Facebook better, but we want to do it in the most responsible way.”
One change that caught my eye is the introduction of an internal panel that will review Facebook’s research projects:
“We’ve created a panel including our most senior subject-area researchers, along with people from our engineering, research, legal, privacy and policy teams, that will review projects falling within these guidelines. This is in addition to our existing privacy cross-functional review for products and research.”
While it’s a step in the right direction, it’s notable that only Facebook employees seem to be part of the review panel. No independent researchers, nor any customers users.
Read more about Facebook’s new research policy here. Thanks to for signaling the news on Twitter.
Things that caught our eye
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about Reddit explaining its reasons for removal of the “The Fappening” subreddit. I summarized it as “a combination of technical difficulties, copyright law, and morality.”
On his internetcases blog, Evan Brown links to a recent VentureBeat interview with Reddit CEO Yishan Wong. In the interview, Wong explains that the takedown was not an incident, but part of Reddit’s policy to remove copyright infringing materials, and to prevent linking to pay-per-click sites, or websites with malware. Wong is silent on any moral issues with regard to the celebrity photo hack:
“If there’s any confusion: [Reddit] did not shut down /r/TheFappening due to content linking to nude celebrity photos. The subreddit was shut down because users were reposting content already taken down due to valid DMCA requests, and because spammers began posting links to the images hosted on their own pay-per-click sites, or sites intended to spread malware. Both activities violate our rules and we took down the subreddit for those reasons only. Similar subreddits created immediately afterwards were also removed for similar reasons, some were created by the spammers themselves.
We understand that this was confusing because our clarification around this stance was posted at around the same time that activity in the subreddit began to violate the rules we’ve detailed here (and thus triggering a shutdown), so we hope this makes things clear.”
Based on the VentureBeat interview with Wong, Brown argues that Reddit’s fear of copyright liability seemed to be a stronger driver for removal than the dignitary interests of the celebrities:
“We can’t read too much from this comment, but it does implicate that the dignitary interests of the celebrities involved did not motivate Reddit to do the right thing. Instead, the risk of copyright liability (or, more precisely, the risk that DMCA safe harbor protection may be eliminated) was a stronger motivation.”
To add to Brown’s argument, and as Melinda Sebastian has already pointed out on this blog: the celebrity leak does not just interfere with the interests of celebrities, but also means something to us, non-celebrities:
“It is not just celebrities who are being watched. It is not just celebrities who feel that they are being watched, particularly in this post NSA-creepin time we find ourselves living in. And it is not just celebrity women who feel violated, pissed off, and all around creeped out when they feel themselves reduced to targets of nude surveillance. They just happen to be the ones with the greatest media presence, who can provide an illustrative example of this beyond voyeuristic environment.”
I assume it is not Wong’s intent to downplay the severity of the celebrity photo hack, or that Reddit doesn’t care about our privacy or that of celebrities. I think Wong’s statement should be seen as an attempt to frame Reddit’s actions as being part of its general policy to remove copyright infringing materials, and to protect users against malware. In that sense there was nothing “special” about the removal of the “TheFappening” subreddit. To prevent liability for copyright infringements, service providers such as Reddit, need to remove copyright infringing materials from their websites when they are notified about such infringements. Wong’s statement and focus on copyright law should be seen as an attempt to escape any allegations of Reddit having editorial control over the website’s content, other than the right and ability to delete content in case of copyright infringements. If Reddit exercises any such form of editorial control – let’s say: Reddit does not accept and removes celebrity nudes because it is against sharing such pictures – it runs the risk of losing the safe harbors that protect against liability for content provided by its users. And that’s not what Reddit wants…
platforms; dmca; copyright, reddit
