It seems that the European Union has taken the government of the United Kingdom to task over its handling of behavioral advertising.  The EU is suing the UK.  That’s right, suing.

This all started with Phorm, the behavioral advertising company that allowed Internet Service Providers to snoop on their subscribers.  Phorm and the ISP’s did not consider this snooping; they consider it better customer service and a better user experience.  The concept was that if the user was searching for Cats, they would be a better candidate to see advertising based on cats, such as cat litter.  On one hand, this is not an unreasonable assumption.  The problem was the the ISPs did not inform their subscribers that they were doing this.

An article titled “UK taken to court over web “secret surveillance” outlines the entire affair.  It’s well worth a look.

Our opinion is that there is nothing wrong with this type of technology.  The problem lies in the subscribers not knowing it was there.  If they had the option to turn it on or off, then it might actually be useful.

Tweet This Post

These days, everyone is conscious of their security. It is a natural instinct of humans, inset into us when our species first roamed the Earth with dinosaurs. Back then it was all about survival, now it is simply an issue of safety. Regardless, people are concerned with security, and after the advent of the Information Generation, concerned with their online security. It makes sense, online security is tied to all other securities in life. Consider someone worried about a criminal finding out where their home is, and attacking them, stealing from them, or kidnapping them or their children; how do you think the criminal found out where the house is? Criminals have enjoyed technological increases as well; instead of the old stalk and follow procedures, they can simply track an open IP address.

It is not just the United States who are advanced technologically enough to be worried about these things; Europeans are currently undergoing an Orwellian crisis. A new law that proposes that local authorities will be able to monitor all activity that occurs on the Internet completely unchecked has nearly ten thousand protesters lined up to fight against this movement happening. It seems ironic; these laws are in place to help the people and to track criminals, monitor child pornographers, etc. People are suspicious though, as is our nature. The government has done too many strange things and hurt too many people all over for the people to completely trust them.

Tweet This Post

Reuters and Yahoo! News report that Google has agreed to cut the amount of time it stores users’ web surfing habits from 18 month to only nine months. This is quite a significant drop, especially when taking into account that in March 2007 Google had no policy and kept the information for an indefinite period of time. Google’s new policies, “are part of a broader trend that is increasing across the industry for companies to compete in good privacy practices,” according to Google’s global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.

Along with the new nine month data retention policy, Google plans to anonymize the data much more quickly. Could this be in response to the Viacom/YouTube issue? This is is a great precautionary measure to protect our Internet privacy from companies like Viacom that want to sue Google so they can obtain users’ records. After nine months the data and the IP address are disassociated and the data can no longer be tracked back to a specific user.

The move to an 18-month data retention policy came about due to the European Union putting pressure on Google to increase their privacy measures. The new nine-month policy was adapted to further refine Google’s privacy protection and keep users much safer while surfing the Internet. The new nine month policy makes Google the alpha male, as far as privacy is concerned. Microsoft still keeps data for 18 months and Yahoo! currently retains data for 13 months.

While this is good news for anyone who surfs the Internet, it is important to remember that your data is being tracked and recorded. Data retention policies are extremely helpful, but ultimately privacy must begin with you. Using an anonymous proxy server will help you be invisible and maintain anonymity while surfing and stay one step ahead of even the most favorable data retention policies.

Tweet This Post

OhMyNews recently reported that the U.K., along with other European powers, are developing a system to spy on cell phone records, including text and calls, as well as Internet searches.

The British government wants to invade privacy by storing records in a database so that hundreds of public organizations can access this information as needed. The cell phone, text message, and Internet records will be used to investigate criminal and terrorist acts. The records will be kept at the data center for at least 12 months. Dates, times, and contacts (from cell phones) will be stored, while searches and instant message conversations will be tracked and recorded as well. The only bright side is that, supposedly, the content will not be stored just the identifying information.

The cost for transferring the massive amount of data–a mere 50 million pounds per year. It must be worth it to the surveillance-obsessed nation that already monitors citizens through CCTV. 1984 anyone? One spy camera for every fourteen people wasn’t bad enough, now forget about protecting personal information or any type of Internet privacy.

I can’t see any benefit in this. The U.K. is making it seem like every citizen is guilty and will be treated accordingly. What will the exact laws be concerning the use, or better yet misuse, of information? How secure will this database be? We could end up having another situation, much like what happened in Sarasota, but on a much larger scale–imagine millions of people having their information posted on the Internet.

Tweet This Post

Guardian UK recently published an article updating the information about the E.U./U.S. privacy deal set to make way sometime next year. This deal is intended to help both sides in the war on terrorism. The two agreed in “principle” but still have numerous unresolved issues.

This deal would be a breakthrough, according to the article, for the U.S. since it faces very strict E.U. privacy laws when trying to find information on a suspected terrorist or criminal. Credit card transactions, travel history, and Internet habits are all protected by the E.U. (Look back at this previous post about U.S. and E.U. privacy laws).

While both sides want to get the ball rolling and make this happen, they do recognize that many issues still need to be resolved. Further they are not in a hurry to make something happen at the expense of citizens’ privacy rights. This is especially true with the recent criticisms that have come about from other deals made between the two, especially one where the E.U. gave the U.S. access to private data about passengers traveling to the U.S. A key issue is the misuse of information, which, if happens, will allow E.U. citizens to sue the U.S. under the U.S. privacy act.

Some principles have been agreed on, while others are still being figured out. One of the major principles is that, “information revealing a person’s racial or ethnic origins, political, religious or philosophical views and health or sexual behavior, may not be processed unless domestic legislation provides appropriate safeguards…people should be told about use of their data, which must be supervised by an independent authority.”

Ultimately, I like this idea…assuming the two stay on the right track and continue progress towards ensuring the average Joe is protected. It definitely seems like every intention is being made to protect us…only time will tell how this plays out.

Tweet This Post

With today’s continuation of MSNBC’s Privacy Lost, the focus is on the vast difference in privacy rights and laws between the United States and the European Union.

A few examples of the difference in European privacy laws vs U.S. privacy laws include:

• Personal information can’t be collected without permission, and the person has a chance to review their information to make sure it is accurate and up to date
• Companies that process data must be registered with the government
• Employee e-mails cannot be read by employers
• Personal information cannot be shared across borders or companies without permission
• Salespeople at stores can’t ask for a shopper’s phone number

Europeans tend to trust their government more, even though many of these limitations do not apply to them. According to the article, the Netherlands is 130 times more likely to use wiretapping than the U.S. The major different is that the E.U. places many privacy restrictions on the “evil” corporations, while the U.S. lacks trust in their government.

The article continues to point out the significance that privacy laws (well actually the lack of privacy laws in this case) played during the Holocaust when church records were used to persecute Jews. Some theories exist that date the privacy issues back even further in history. The article then continues to point out some recent examples of how the differences in privacy laws became major issues. Europeans choose to use the government, which is there to protect them, when wrongdoings occur…Americans, on the other hand, use the private sector to resolve issues.

The article displays a very useful chart to show the differences between the U.S. and E.U. in various issues including: right to privacy, government snooping, and consumer data collection. From what I see, Americans tend to view privacy as a personal matter that they have a right to defend on their own terms. In contrast, Europeans seem to see privacy as a matter of government and will use that avenue as opposed to actively pursuing ways to protect their privacy. Americans make privacy happen, while Europeans expect it to be there.

While I won’t say that one trumps the other, both the U.S. and the E.U. make valid points to their cause. My reoccuring thought while reading this article was how do two vastly different systems work so well, respectively? Speaking from a U.S. point of view, while many privacy issues exist, I know I can still be protected. It is a difficult subject to approach. Ultimately, both systems are working in their respective ways.

Tweet This Post