Internet companies have been in lawmakers sights lately over the treatment of information they gather from their surfers, and how well protected it really is. Essentially, these behavioral advertisers track where you have been and bring you related advertisement. That wouldn’t fly in real life, and people are tired of it happening online.

Lawmakers in the House are taking action. They are writing laws and other new documents that propose to limit the amount of unauthorized snooping that goes on when Internet companies look at your browsing histories. They also wish to educate the public on how they could better protect themselves while online.

While the bill is being debated in congress, there is not enough energy to go all around, with health care and energy conservation taking up most of the floor time. The issue isn’t pigeonholed though, and it will up for consideration next year.

Google, Yahoo, and other search engines and sites to be affected by this bill are a bit torn on where they stand: they want people to have their privacy, but at the same time, they make money through these advertisers.

Tweet This Post

Long gone are the days when two warring factions would line up to face each, announce a start, and then enter the hectic fray. Nowadays, the “old war” of guns, blood, and violence is taking a backseat to a new kind of war: a virtual one.

This new modern warfare occurs on the Internet, and the winner isn’t the one with the least dead or the last standing; he is the one with the enemy Intel stored away nice and safe. In order to protect itself, the U.S. will need a vast and in-depth monitoring system, and we might find an extension of the Patriot Act in the works.

Last month, President Obama unveiled this huge new Internet security overhaul. He insists that all civil liberties will be upheld during any surveillance the system will be doing. His senior officials however, think that the complete upholding of all privacy laws will be difficult to do, when scanning every virtual nook and cranny to scout out terrorist activity.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is the branch that is going to spearhead the virtual protection of the U.S. This agency has been in a bit of controversy in the past for supposed privacy invasion. The nation’s security is not a matter to be taken lightly though, and they can justify every action they make. Some have just felt that they have been a bit more invasive than they need to be.

Tweet This Post

With recent blog posts about the Virginia Watchdog and PulaskiWatch, it was only a matter of time before someone had their identity stolen due to the negligence of county clerks posting sensitive information. Computerworld reported on a Ohio woman suing the county clerk after her identity was stolen. An image of a speeding ticket, containing her personal information, was posted on the county website.

Tweet This Post

Computerworld reported that an upset Arkansas man has posted sensitive information on his website, PulaskiWatch. The information was found via public records and consisted of e-mails between nine government officials, including the county clerk. This privacy issue may seem a little familiar as the Virginia Watchdog (which, coincidentally, does not seem to be working) also posted sensitive information on government officials in Virginia.

Tweet This Post

TechCrunch (via the WashingtonPost) has recently published an article stating what should be the Digital Bill of Rights to protect consumers. With the Internet age in full-swing, and Election ‘08 in the near future, what better time than now to present a plan of action for laws and regulations regarding the Internet? Many laws governing the Internet are quite outdated and can’t keep up with the daily advances in technology…as food for thought: What if laws had never been changed with the inception of modern mail carriers? Imagine the same laws were still completely intact even with the transition from the Pony Express to the modern-day United States Postal Service. Could that work? Could a law regarding the Pony Express still govern the actions of USPS?

Issues such as copyright infringement, net neutrality, and digital privacy are difficult to govern, mainly because they are creations of the modern era of technology. Maybe it is time to dust off the books and create some new laws that can maintain a degree of control and consistency over rapidly expanding technology. Many laws do not protect users’ Internet privacy and allow companies to spy on us and record our information so they can build a profile of our web surfing habits. The Digital Bill of Rights would be a step in the right direction to create updated laws that can protect consumers from ISPs, marketing companies, device manufacturers, and even the government itself.

Presented in the article is the author’s own Digital Bill of Rights, which he asks users to help further refine. Maybe our candidates can use this as a starting point and get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Tweet This Post

Well it is more than an Internet Service Provider, but Cable One, the 10th largest cable operator, has recently admitted to conducted a six-month study on their Internet users’ surfing habits. Cable One joins Charter Communications (as reported in a previous post) and a slew of other MSOs (multiple service operators) who spy on their customers for behavioral targeting purposes, and ultimately sell that information for big bucks to advertising companies.

Cable One revealed the information on August 8 to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had previously expressed their concerns on cable operators using advanced technology to invade privacy. So if I decipher this correctly: Cable One tried to defend themselves against these allegations by providing information and stating they invaded their customers’ privacy. Cable One stated that spying on 14,000 of their 700,000 customers was a better way to provide “more relevant advertising” to their customers.

Bresnan Communications and Knology also came out of the woodwork to say they spied on customers throughout a similar time frame. WideOpenWest admitted to doing this, in cooperation with NebuAd’s service. WideOpenWest stopped the program after five months because of the privacy concerns. All efforts to surf anonymously have become null and void for many Internet users, and for no apparent reason other than having better online advertisements. Shouldn’t these companies help protect personal information, not jeopardize it?

Cable One argues that they were not breaking any laws by conducting this research, and had made the information available to their users via the acceptable use policy they read when signing up for services. The information was also found in Cable One’s yearly privacy notice, which is sent to all customers. They provided users with appropriate notice, BUT did not allow them to opt out of the research, “because doing so would stifle our ability to test new technologies that have the potential to offer significant benefits to our customers.” Wow…

In essence the companies are arguing that because they put it in writing it is alright to spy on users and completely ignore any type of Internet privacy laws. It seems a bit ridiculous that my privacy rights are in jeopardy and I have no way of opting out. I can’t even choose to say “No.” In other words, even if I know it is happening I have no say in the outcome. The companies are not just able to record information for advertising purposes, but can use this technology to track and record ALL information being transmitted and received through their network. Hopefully when the Committee drafts a new law they remember to add the clause that we, as paying customers who want to feel safe, should have to opt-IN to this research–not be forced into whatever absurd money-making scheme the companies are up to.

Tweet This Post

While we write blogs and update our site with useful tools and information to protect your Internet privacy, 84 million people a year fall victim to identity theft. With fraud totals reaching $49.3 billion in 2007, it is very important to take the first step and proactively find ways to keep your information private. We provide blogs, articles, and products that protect you, but the 84 million people a year who have fallen victim to identity theft have little help or support.

Many victims find out within three months of the theft…that means the person who stole the identity has had a three month head start on spending your money and opening up false accounts. This fact, along with the fact that the average identity theft victim can spend 330 hours repairing their credit, shows that ID theft is a dangerous crime. 330 hours = roughly 13 full days. That means a person can spend 13 24-hour days (or 41 8-hour work days) trying to fix the damage from ID theft. The FTC has created a section of their website that contains tools and information for the victims of identity theft so they can begin the rebuilding process as quickly as possible.

If you are the victim of identity theft you should do these four steps immediately:

1. Review your credit reports and place a fraud alert (or extended fraud alert) with the credit bureaus.
2. Close the accounts that have been tampered with or opened fraudulently.
3. File a complaint with the FTC.
4. File a police report.

This is the shortened version of the list, but these are the steps you should follow to ensure the situation is dealt with asap. The following tools for victims of identity theft will be useful in conjunction with the four steps:

• You must always keep a log of your actions and findings when gathering information from an identity theft. The FTC has provided a “course of action chart” to help you keep detailed information for your reference.
• FTC ID Theft Complaint form. This form found on the FTC’s Consumer Protection page can be combined with the police report to create an Identity Theft Report, helping victims get the ball rolling sooner and recover quicker. The report is used to block fraudulent information from appearing on your credit report, and prevent companies from collecting debts due to an identity theft.
• ID Theft Affidavit (pdf). This form is less detailed and does not offer as much protection as the Identity Theft Report, but is still a very useful tool to have. The eight page document must be filled out in order to absolve you of any debt incurred due to identity theft, or to gain access to the information a company has on the identity thief they dealt with.
• Victim’s Statement of Rights. This statement details your rights under federal law (and also has a link to state resources).
• You will have to write many letters to credit card companies, banks, and other companies that have been used during your identity theft. The FTC provides a list of sample letters for various purposes that are useful and time saving tools (note: Word documents):
• Requesting fraudulent transactions or account information
• Requesting credit bureaus to block fraudulent information from appearing on your credit report
• Disputing charges on an existing account that has been tampered with
• Disputing charges on an account opened by the identity thief
• Law Enforcement(pdf) cover letter that should be attached with your FTC Identity Theft Complaint

These tools will help the identity theft victim reduce the number of hours and the amount of effort needed to resolve an identity theft. Of course always remember the best offense against an identity theft is a great defense!

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

And today brings a close to Privacy Lost with the fifth segment, “For celebs, price of fame is rising.”

This article sheds some light on exactly how high tensions are between celebrities and paparazzi. The same methods used by government agencies to monitor citizens are basically the same used to stalk celebrities. Long-lens cameras and listening devices top the list of preferred methods to invade privacy. Being a high profile name means a celebrity is vulnerable to identity theft since so much information can be found about them. While identity theft is a major concern to anyone, celebrities find that their biggest privacy risk comes in the form of high-tech, highly aggressive media. Celebrities can’t even be safe in their own homes anymore.

Although, as the article mentions, some celebrities cry wolf and say they have no privacy while airing their dirty laundry on realty TV shows and websites. It ultimately brings us back to the main point of Privacy Lost, talk and actions are miles apart when discussing privacy. We all say that we want more privacy and that we will take the steps to make it happen, but when push comes to shove….nothing.

While the article focuses on issues from 2006, everything presented throughout the five parts has lost no relevance. As time progresses so does technology and the way people use it. Privacy is something is taken for granted. We don’t notice when privacy is there. It is just assumed, until someone threatens to take our privacy away.

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