130 years on, privacy is still largely conceived of as an individual thing, wherein we get to make solo decisions about when we want to be left alone and when we’re comfortable being trespassed upon.

“For one of the most heavily guarded individuals in the world, a publicly available Venmo account and friend list is a massive security hole. Even a small friend list is still enough to paint a pretty reliable picture of someone's habits, routines, and social circles,” Gebhart said.

Although I believe people have a right to secure and private communication, I disagree with those who extrapolate from this that we have a right to anonymous property transfer. It’s totally in the public’s legitimate interest to keep track of who owns what, and to settle which transfers of ownership are legitimate, for instance by disallowing coerced ones.

People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can't happen where the work happens anymore.

just as you can enter a store in the real world without

Not only are these websites breaking my trust—when I visit your website, I entered into contact with you, not 80 other websites—but they are loading content from websites neither know nor trust. Some of which have been know to spread malware.

a data donation platform that allows users of browsers to donate data on their usage of specific services (eg Youtube, or Facebook) to a platform.

The idea is that many smaller tech companies would allow for more choice between services. This solution is flawed. For one, services like search or social media benefit from network effects. Having large datasets to train on, means search recommendations get better. Having all your friends in one place, means you don’t need five apps to contact them all. I would argue those are all things we like and might lose when Big Tech is broken up. What we want is to be able to leave Facebook and still talk to our friends, instead of having many Facebooks.

Our new feature, Total Cookie Protection, works by maintaining a separate “cookie jar” for each website you visit. Any time a website, or third-party content embedded in a website, deposits a cookie in your browser, that cookie is confined to the cookie jar assigned to that website, such that it is not allowed to be shared with any other website.

Honey does not track your search engine history, emails, or your browsing on any site that is not a retail website (a site where you can shop and make a purchase). When you are on a pre-approved retail site, to help you save money, Honey will collect information about that site that lets us know which coupons and promos to find for you. We may also collect information about pricing and availability of items, which we can share with the rest of the Honey community.

(F)unctionalSifting:APrivacy-PreservingReputationSystemThroughMulti-InputFunctionalEncryption(extendedversion)

Despite some implementation challenges, patient portals have allowed millions of patients to access to their medical records, read physicians’ notes, message providers, and contribute valuable information and corrections.

In our bedrooms, we want to have powerover who has access to us; in our bathrooms, we just want others de-prived of that access.

By privacy, I understand the condition in which other people aredeprived of access to either some information about you or some ex-perience of you. For the sake of economy, I will shorten this and saythat privacy is the condition in which others are deprived of access toyou.

No doubt privacyis valuable to people who have mischief to hide, but that is not enoughto make it generally worth protecting. However, it is enough to re-mind us that whatever value privacy has, it also has costs. The moreprivacy we have, the more difficult it is to get the information that

As you already noticed, the extension does not go in an manipulate the hrefs/urls in the DOM itself. While it may seem scary to you that an extension may manipulate a URL you're navigating to in-flight, I think it's far scarier to imagine an extension reading and manipulating all of the HTML on all of the pages you go to (bank accounts, utilities, crypto, etc) in order to provide a smidgeon of privacy for the small % of times you happen to click a link with some UTM params.

You’re in good companyTrusted by leaders at some of the world’s most inspired organizations

I haven't met anyone who makes this argument who then says that a one stop convenient, reliable, private and secure online learning environment can’t be achieved using common every day online systems

And then there was what Lanier calls “data dignity”; he once wrote a book about it, called Who Owns the Future? The idea is simple: What you create, or what you contribute to the digital ether, you own.

“Being under constant surveillance in the workplace is psychological abuse,” Heinemeier Hansson added. “Having to worry about looking busy for the stats is the last thing we need to inflict on anyone right now.”

For example, to help maintain privacy and trust, the user data provided in productivity score is aggregated over a 28-day period.

Recent patent filings show that Microsoft has been exploring additional ideas to monitor workers in the interest of organizational productivity. One filing describes a “meeting insight computing system” that would generate a quality score for a meeting using data such as body language, facial expressions, room temperature, time of day, and number of people in the meeting.

Online Exams & Proctoring (In Addition to Guidance Listed Above) Requiring students to turn on their camera to be watched or recorded at home during an exam poses significant privacy concerns and should not be undertaken lightly. Several proctoring services use machine learning, AI, eye-tracking, key-logging, and other technologies to detect potential cheating; these should be used only when no feasible alternatives exist. If instructors are using a proctoring service during the COVID-19 measures, they must provide explicit notice to the students before the exam. Instructors are encouraged to work with the Digital Learning Hub in the Commons and the Academic Integrity Office to consider privacy-protective options, including how to use question banks (in Canvas), that will uphold integrity and good assessment design. Proctors and instructors are strongly discouraged from requiring students to show their surroundings on camera. Computers are available in labs for students who do not have a computer to take their final exams. Finals CANNOT be held in a lab, that is, instructors cannot be present nor can students from a specific class be asked to gather there for a final. This is only for those students who need a computer to drop in and complete their exam.

Why let other websites and social platforms tell your story? Share the real, authentic you the way you want to, and when you want to.

anonymous imageboard

A long term key is as secure as the minimum common denominator of your security practices over its lifetime. It's the weak link.

The first is that the presence of surveillance means society cannot experiment with new things without fear of reprisal, and that means those experiments—if found to be inoffensive or even essential to society—cannot slowly become commonplace, moral, and then legal. If surveillance nips that process in the bud, change never happens. All social progress—from ending slavery to fighting for women’s rights—began as ideas that were, quite literally, dangerous to assert. Yet without the ability to safely develop, discuss, and eventually act on those assertions, our society would not have been able to further its democratic values in the way that it has. Consider the decades-long fight for gay rights around the world. Within our lifetimes we have made enormous strides to combat homophobia and increase acceptance of queer folks’ right to marry. Queer relationships slowly progressed from being viewed as immoral and illegal, to being viewed as somewhat moral and tolerated, to finally being accepted as moral and legal. In the end it was the public nature of those activities that eventually slayed the bigoted beast, but the ability to act in private was essential in the beginning for the early experimentation, community building, and organizing. Marijuana legalization is going through the same process: it’s currently sitting between somewhat moral, and—depending on the state or country in question—tolerated and legal. But, again, for this to have happened, someone decades ago had to try pot and realize that it wasn’t really harmful, either to themselves or to those around them. Then it had to become a counterculture, and finally a social and political movement. If pervasive surveillance meant that those early pot smokers would have been arrested for doing something illegal, the movement would have been squashed before inception. Of course the story is more complicated than that, but the ability for members of society to privately smoke weed was essential for putting it on the path to legalization. We don’t yet know which subversive ideas and illegal acts of today will become political causes and positive social change tomorrow, but they’re around. And they require privacy to germinate. Take away that privacy, and we’ll have a much harder time breaking down our inherited moral assumptions.

For both the tailor-customer and doctor-patient examples, personal data is an input used to improve an output (dress, suit, medical treatment) such that the improvement directly serves the interests of the person whose information is being used.

Preserving user privacy is difficult when detectingmore nuanced forms of censorshipSome forms of softcensorship might involve intentional performance degrada-tion or content manipulation. Detecting this type of behav-ior would require comparing performance or content acrossgroups of users, but such a comparison also implies thateach user must reveal their browsing history.

If the EU is set to mandate encryption backdoors to enable law enforcement to pursue bad actors on social media, and at the same time intends to continue to pursue the platforms for alleged bad practices, then entrusting their diplomatic comms to those platforms, while forcing them to have the tools in place to break encryption as needed would seem a bad idea.

But as long as the most important measure of success is short-term profit, doing things that help strengthen communities will fall by the wayside. Surveillance, which allows individually targeted advertising, will be prioritized over user privacy. Outrage, which drives engagement, will be prioritized over feelings of belonging. And corporate secrecy, which allows Facebook to evade both regulators and its users, will be prioritized over societal oversight.

Increased pressure on Facebook to manage propaganda and hate speech could easily lead to more surveillance. But there is pressure in the other direction as well, as users equate privacy with increased control over how they present themselves on the platform.

At the same time, working through these principles is only the first step in building out a privacy-focused social platform. Beyond that, significant thought needs to go into all of the services we build on top of that foundation -- from how people do payments and financial transactions, to the role of businesses and advertising, to how we can offer a platform for other private services.

People want to be able to choose which service they use to communicate with people. However, today if you want to message people on Facebook you have to use Messenger, on Instagram you have to use Direct, and on WhatsApp you have to use WhatsApp. We want to give people a choice so they can reach their friends across these networks from whichever app they prefer.We plan to start by making it possible for you to send messages to your contacts using any of our services, and then to extend that interoperability to SMS too. Of course, this would be opt-in and you will be able to keep your accounts separate if you'd like.

An important part of the solution is to collect less personal data in the first place, which is the way WhatsApp was built from the outset.

As we build up large collections of messages and photos over time, they can become a liability as well as an asset. For example, many people who have been on Facebook for a long time have photos from when they were younger that could be embarrassing. But people also really love keeping a record of their lives.

We increasingly believe it's important to keep information around for shorter periods of time. People want to know that what they share won't come back to hurt them later, and reducing the length of time their information is stored and accessible will help.

I understand that many people don't think Facebook can or would even want to build this kind of privacy-focused platform -- because frankly we don't currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services, and we've historically focused on tools for more open sharing.

But now, with all the ways people also want to interact privately, there's also an opportunity to build a simpler platform that's focused on privacy first.

Today we already see that private messaging, ephemeral stories, and small groups are by far the fastest growing areas of online communication.

As I think about the future of the internet, I believe a privacy-focused communications platform will become even more important than today's open platforms. Privacy gives people the freedom to be themselves and connect more naturally, which is why we build social networks.

Now let me get back to your question. The FBI presents its conflict with Apple over locked phones as a case as of privacy versus security. Yes, smartphones carry a lot of personal data—photos, texts, email, and the like. But they also carry business and account information; keeping that secure is really important. The problem is that if you make it easier for law enforcement to access a locked device, you also make it easier for a bad actor—a criminal, a hacker, a determined nation-state—to do so as well. And that's why this is a security vs. security issue.

The FBI — along with many other law enforcement and surveillance agents — insists that it is possible to make crypto that will protect our devices, transactions, data, communications and lives, but which will fail catastrophically whenever a cop needs it to. When technologists explain that this isn't a thing, the FBI insists that they just aren't nerding hard enough.

Barr makes the point that this is about “consumer cybersecurity” and not “nuclear launch codes.” This is true, but it ignores the huge amount of national security-related communications between those two poles. The same consumer communications and computing devices are used by our lawmakers, CEOs, legislators, law enforcement officers, nuclear power plant operators, election officials and so on. There’s no longer a difference between consumer tech and government tech—it’s all the same tech.

The answers for law enforcement, social networks, and medical data won’t be the same. As we move toward greater surveillance, we need to figure out how to get the best of both: how to design systems that make use of our data collectively to benefit society as a whole, while at the same time protecting people individually.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

“They can see you, but you can’t see them, which I didn’t feel good about,”

Similarly, technology can help us control the climate, make AI safe, and improve privacy.

Legislation to stem the tide of Big Tech companies' abuses, and laws—such as a national consumer privacy bill, an interoperability bill, or a bill making firms liable for data-breaches—would go a long way toward improving the lives of the Internet users held hostage inside the companies' walled gardens. But far more important than fixing Big Tech is fixing the Internet: restoring the kind of dynamism that made tech firms responsive to their users for fear of losing them, restoring the dynamic that let tinkerers, co-ops, and nonprofits give every person the power of technological self-determination.

In fact, these platforms have become inseparable from their data: we use “Facebook” to refer to both the application and the data that drives that application. The result is that nearly every Web app today tries to ask you for more and more data again and again, leading to dangling data on duplicate and inconsistent profiles we can no longer manage. And of course, this comes with significant privacy concerns.

working in public, and asking students to work in public, is fraught with dangers and challenges.

 recording it all in a Twitter thread that went viral and garnered the hashtag  #PlaneBae.

molecules

A friend of mine asked if I’d thought through the contradiction of criticizing Blair publicly like this, when she’s another not-quite public figure too.

Even when the attention is positive, it is overwhelming and frightening. Your mind reels at the possibility of what they could find: your address, if your voting records are logged online; your cellphone number, if you accidentally included it on a form somewhere; your unflattering selfies at the beginning of your Facebook photo archive. There are hundreds of Facebook friend requests, press requests from journalists in your Instagram inbox, even people contacting your employer when they can’t reach you directly. This story you didn’t choose becomes the main story of your life. It replaces who you really are as the narrative someone else has written is tattooed onto your skin.

the woman on the plane has deleted her own Instagram account after receiving violent abuse from the army Blair created.

We actively create our public selves, every day, one social media post at a time.

in the not-so-distant future, it will show targeted ads to users on WhatsApp

To defeat facial recognition software, “you would have to wear a mask or disguises,” Tien says. “That doesn’t really scale up for people.”

reminding your students that you value and respect their privacy and their culture.

L’homme asservi n’est pas seulement contraint, il consent à sa contrainte.

and as a result, the requirement to use this tracking permission will go into effect early next year.

There are clever ways around trackers

These creeping changes help us forget how important our privacy is and miss that it’s being eroded.

Turns out, there’s a dedicated “Individual Account Appeal Form” where they ask you a list of privacy-touching mandatory questions, progressively shifting the Overton window

I have pixelized the faces of the recognizable people wearing a red cord (as they don't want to appear on pictures). I hope is fine.

a new kind of power

Our membership inference attack exploits the observationthat machine learning models often behave differently on thedata that they were trained on versus the data that they “see”for the first time.

It is the natural trajectory of business to seek out new ways to drive revenue from products like microwaves, televisions, refrigerators, and speakers. And now that microwaves and TVs can effectively operate as mini-computers, it feels inevitable that manufacturers would look to collect potentially valuable data — whether for resale, for product optimization, or to bring down the sticker price of the device.

This advertising system is designed to enable hyper-targeting, which has many unintended consequences that have dominated the headlines in recent years, such as the ability for bad actors to use the system to influence elections, to exclude groups in a way that facilitates discrimination, and to expose your personal data to companies you’ve never even heard of.

if you search for something on Google, you may start seeing ads for it everywhere.

Alarmingly, Google now deploys hidden trackers on 76% of websites across the web to monitor your behavior and Facebook has hidden trackers on about 25% of websites, according to the Princeton Web Transparency & Accountability Project. It is likely that Google and/or Facebook are watching you on most sites you visit, in addition to tracking you when using their products.