• Home
  • about this blog
  • Blog Posts

Parasam

Menu

  • design
  • fashion
  • history
  • philosophy
  • photography
  • post-production
    • Content Protection
    • Quality Control
  • science
  • security
  • technology
    • 2nd screen
    • IoT
  • Uncategorized
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Recent Posts

    • Take Control of your Phone
    • DI – Disintermediation, 5 years on…
    • Objective Photography is an Oxymoron (all photos lie…)
    • A Historical Moment: The Sylmar Earthquake of 1971 (Los Angeles, CA)
    • Where Did My Images Go? [the challenge of long-term preservation of digital images]
  • Archives

    • September 2020
    • October 2017
    • August 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • November 2015
    • June 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • December 2014
    • February 2014
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
  • Categories

    • 2nd screen
    • Content Protection
    • design
    • fashion
    • history
    • IoT
    • philosophy
    • photography
    • post-production
    • Quality Control
    • science
    • security
    • technology
    • Uncategorized
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.com

Browsing Tags online

Privacy, Security and the Virtual World…

March 27, 2012 · by parasam

I’ve written on this before, and will again I am sure. It’s an important issue that interests and concerns me, and I assume many of my readers as well. The issue of privacy and security is fundamental, and much of human history and our legal system has been concerned with these issues. “A man’s house is his castle and fortress, et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium” was written in 1628 by Sir Edward Coke in his legal treatise The Institutes of the Laws of England – (the Latin at end of the sentence translates to and each man’s home is his safest refuge). This principle has been used by countless societies since then to allow defense of what is considered ‘private property’ – whether this be real or virtual.

The recent rate of technological innovation has vastly outstripped the pace of our legal systems as well as even our social, cultural and philosophical consensus. We are now forced to grapple with realities that were only months or a few years back not even conceptualized. And the challenges keep on coming. Here are some recent examples of really good ideas that can have some really bad consequences…

♦ We have all heard much about ‘locational privacy’ – the result of our personal location being revealed through GPS, cellphone tower triangulation, WiFi hotspot location, etc. etc. While incredibly useful and convenient (just ask Siri “where can I get a pizza?”, and with no further information she gives you 3 choices within a few hundred meters…) – this technology can also provide unwitting information for stalkers, abusive partners, criminals, or just plain overzealous advertisers to invade our sense of personal privacy.

Another example:  recently mall owners were thwarted in their attempts to track shoppers without notification using their mobile devices. PathIntelligence was hired by Promenade Temecula in southern California and Short Pump Town Center in Redmond, VA to test their FootPath Technology system – without knowledge or consent of shoppers. Basically, the system uses the TMSI signal (Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identifier) – which is emitted continuously anytime a cellphone is powered on [it’s part of the basic cellphone technology – allowing a user’s phone to be identified by a nearby tower, so that when the user wants to place a call a link can be established and authenticated]. There is no way for a user to know they are being monitored in this fashion, and the only way to not be detected is to turn your phone off – not a realisitic answer – particularly if you don’t know you’re being monitored in the first place! The full article is here.

The upside of this technology is [supposedly] anonymous foot traffic info so retailers in malls can see where patrons go when they leave Macy’s for example – which fast food place do they go to next? This of course can be consumed by targeted ad campaigns.The downside:  using ‘orthogonal data mining’ techniques (whereby separate databases are ‘mined’ for information based on specific search parameters that yield collective data that is much more informative than any one particular database may yield), it would be entirely possible, for example, to derive the following information: – a so-called ‘anonymous’ shopper buys perfume at Macy’s, using their Macy’s charge card. Since the fine print on your charge agreement with Macy’s is different (and, like most department and other chain stores – allows much more use of your personal data) than your generic VISA or MasterCard, your purchase is now linked to your past history of Macy’s shopping. Now, while the FootPath system only tracks ‘anonymous’ cellphones, it doesn’t take rocket science to start following digital breadcrumbs.. Shopper “Jane Doe” buys perfume at 10:18AM in Macy’s; an anonymous shopper leave Macy’s at 10:21AM and goes to Steve Madden (women’s shoes, for you clueless guys) and buys a pair of sandals, again on a charge card… you get the picture… At best, your patterns, lifestyle, etc. are merged into what is often being called a ‘creepybase’ – a database so personally identifying as to have a significant ‘creep factor’ – and worth a lot to advertisers who desire the most detailed profiles possible. At worst, your ‘profile’ is sold off to criminals who (and this real BTW!) build ‘target profiles’ of people that buy at certain stores (i.e. have a certain level of income), and how long they take to do that… so they won’t be home when their homes are robbed…

♦ Again, another example of how basic locational services (GPS, often augmented with WiFi hotspot triangulation) is being extended. Google was awarded a patent recently for a new technology to determine not just where you are but what you are doing: based on ambient sounds, temperature and any other data that can be measured, either directly or indirectly, by your smartphone or other data device. An actual example provided by Google in the patenet application: “You’re attending a baseball game and call Google’s 411 service for information about a nearby restaurant. The cheers of the crowd and the sounds of the announcer are picked up by your phone. Google’s system analyzes the background noise, takes into account your location, determines that you’re at a ballgame and delivers related ads or links to your phone with sports scores and news.”But did the user know that their call to information was being monitored in that fashion, and used for targeted advertising? And remember, the web never, never, never forgets. Anything. Ever. Regardless of what anyone or any company tells you. And oh by the way the next time you call in sick when the surf’s up… better not be at the beach with a wave crashing in the background… (soundproof padded rooms for certain phone calls will soon be necessary…)

♦ There are new technologies that aim to ‘read’ moods and emotions of speakers. By using advanced voice recognition software that is sensitive to not only the actual words, but the contextual semantics of speech and word patterns, tonal variances in speech sounds, breathing cadence, etc. the algorithms can, on the good side, be used to identify sales pitches that are disguised; scam artists that seek to prey on the eldly, etc. But, since this game is a contstant cat-and-mouse, within a week expect the ‘bad guy’ to be self-monitoring his own speech patterns with such a tool – and using it to analyze his mark’s speech to see if the person on the other end of the phone is suspicious, distressed – or calm and accepting.

♦ Face recognition has received a lot of press recently – it’s getting a LOT better, and is now within the reach of a casual consumer, not just police departments. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University recently identified about a third of all randomly selected, previously unknown (to the researchers) subjects, just using facial recognition technology recently acquired by Google. With a little social engineering, that figure went up to over 70%. And that’s not all: The professor running the research showed:  “As a demonstration of his latest project, Prof. Acquisti also built a mobile-phone app that takes pictures of people and overlays on the picture a prediction of the subject’s name and Social Security number. He said he won’t release the app, but that he wanted to showcase the power of the data that can be generated from a single photo.” This particular research typically got the first five numbers of the SSN correct on the first attempt, all 9 numbers after only 4 attempts.Now, a new startup (Faced.me) has an app that will shortly release that allows VERY fast facial recognition (under 1 second) – and then can automatically link to that person’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn accounts. Now this can be cool – a useful tool for salepeople, tradeshows, conventions, etc. — but the potential ‘creep factor’ is obvious… troll a shopping mall for teenage girls (who are notoriously lax with online security, and tend to post their life story, and pictures, on just about every social site) and snap pix, get IDs, log into FB page, – well you get the picture…

♦ Augmented Reality (AR) has been around for some time, but only recently has it moved from motion picture screens as ‘magic’, and heads-up displays of fighter aircraft (where terrain-following radar is used to call up actual photos from a flight path to better identify obstacles and targets when flying at extremely low altitude (and yes, fighter aircraft DO fly under bridges!). You can now download an app for your iPhone or iPad (Autonomy’s Aurasma) that performs automatic AR on images that are in it’s library. For instance, you point your iPhone camera (while in the Aurasma app) at a still photo of a sporting event, within seconds a live video overlays the still of the game highlights… it’s an advertisers mecca:  point this app at billboards, storefronts, print ads in magazines – and a targeted video that is tuned to the user (using of course all the other bits we have discussed above) starts playing.However… now the ‘cloud’ knows exactly what you are looking at, what you like while you are there, etc. etc. And, BTW, do you know that ALL of the iPhone (and iPad) hardware is available to any app developer – just because you are using the rear-facing camera to run the AR app, for example, does not mean the little front-facing camera (that sees you!) cannot be turned on and used at the same time… and of course with facial recognition – and the fact that you are so close to the camera – sophisticated facial feature analysis algorithms can read your emotional state, track where your eyes are focused on the image (and since the image is being fed to you by the app, the app creator knows exactly what part of the image is catching your eye)…  [big note:  I am NOT saying that this particular app – Aursama – does this, nor do I even suspect that it does – just pointing out what is perfectly legal, feasible and possible today].

The above are just a few examples of how recent technological advancements have put real pressure on our sense of privacy and security. I am not advocating a return to kerosene lanterns and horses – I personally derive much benefit from these new features. I like the fact that I can just raise my phone and ask Siri “Is it going to rain today?” – no matter where I am – and with no other information provided directly by me – I get my answer in a few seconds. But we collectively must address these new ‘freedoms’ and figure out how to protect our ‘castles’ – even if they are made of virtual bits and not bricks.

I don’t yet have a plethora of answers for these challenges, nor am I sure I even have all the questions… but here are a few points for consideration:

    • The definition of privacy has a lot to do with the concept of boundaries.  The walls of your house are a boundary:  police need a warrant to enter without invitation, defense against criminal entry is usually legal, etc.  Even in public, the inside of your car is a boundary, again, any broach of this boundary without invitation is considered a breach of privacy. And that was recently extended by US Supreme Court to mean that police can’t stick a GPS tracking device on the outside of a car without a warrant…As a society, we must respect boundaries, both social, physical and moral. Without such respect, chaos ensues. Some boundaries are already accepted as ‘virtual’ – but well respected in both moral and legal realms. Even in a public place, if you go to kiss a girl and she says “No!” – you are most definitely crossing a boundary if you don’t respect that – and you will likely have significant consequences if you don’t…
    • What then are the virtual ‘boundaries’ of data about our behavior? Who owns that data that is collected about our purchasing habits, travel preferences, musical likes, etc.? How do we collectively establish a normative acceptable protocol for targeted advertising that won’t creep out consumers (remember the Target scandal over pregnancy products pitches?) and yet at the same time prove effective so that company ad spends are seen to be worthwhile? Remember, that there is no such thing as free. Ever. Only alternatively funded. Every ‘free’ Google search you get to make is paid for by those pesky little ads at top and side of page. The internet that we know and love costs a LOT to run. Forbes estimates $200 billion per year. And that’s just operating expenses, not capital investment. While it’s really impossible to say, several sages that know much more than me about this have estimated a world-wide investment of $2 trillion is currently invested in the entire internet infrastructure. Now that’s enough cash to even get China’s attention… And most of us access this for a very small cost (just our data costs from internet provider) and pay nothing further for all the sites we visit (with small percentage of paying customers:  porn and news are the two largest ‘paywalls’ on the ‘net). So we must all thank the advertisers. They pay for most of the rest.
    • Assuming that at some point we come to a collective agreement on ‘what is ok and what is not’ in terms of virtual behavior (and this is not simple – the internet by it’s very nature has no effective ‘nation-state’ boundaries) then how do we police this? Today, with only very small exceptions (and even then mostly unenforceable) in the World Court, all legal redress is localized. Witness the tremendous difficulty that movie studios have with enforcing even egregious piracy actions from off-shore server farms. The combined forces of NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. are frequently brought to bear on international money laundering, etc. – with many more failures than they will ever admit. If these boys, with their almost inexhaustable store of high-tech toys, can’t easily wrestle the beast of recalcitrant bits to the ground, what chance will the virtual equivalent of ‘small claims court’ have for the average citizen? These are real questions that must be resolved.

Whose Data Is It Anyway?

February 17, 2012 · by parasam

A trending issue, with much recent activity in the headlines, is the thorny topic of what I will call our ‘digital shadow’. By this I mean collectively all the data that represents our real self in the virtual world. This digital shadow is comprised of both explicit data (e-mails you send, web pages you browse, movies/music you stream, etc.) and implicit data (the time of day you visited a web page, how long you spent viewing that page, the location of your cellphone throughout the day, etc.).

Every time you move through the virtual world, you leave a shadow. Some call this your digital footprint. The size of this footprint or shadow is much, much larger than most realize. An example, with something as simple as a single corporate e-mail sent to a colleague at another company:

Your original e-mail may have been a few paragraphs of text (5kB) and a two page Word document (45kB) for a nominal size of 50kB. When you press Send this is cached in your computer, then copied to your firm’s e-mail server. It is copied again, at least twice, before it even leaves your company: once to the shadow backup service (just about all e-mail backup systems today run a live parallel backup to avoid losing any mail), and again to your firm’s data retention archive – mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley, FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), etc.

The message then begins its journey across the internet to the recipient. After leaving the actual e-mail server the message must traverse your corporation’s firewall. Each message is typically inspected for outgoing viruses and potentially attachment type or other parameters set by your company’s communications policy. In order to do this, the message is held in memory for a short time.

The e-mail then finally begins its trip on the WAN (Wide Area Network) – which is actually many miles of fiber optic cable with a number of routers to link the segments – that is what the internet is, physically. (Ok, it might be copper, or a microwave, but basically it’s a bunch of pipes and pumps that squirt traffic to where it’s supposed to end up).

A typical international e-mail will pass through at least 30 routers, each one of which holds the message in its internal memory for a while, until that message moves out of the queue. This is known as ‘store and forward’ technology. Eventually the message gets to the recipient firm, and goes through the same steps as when it first left – albeit in reverse order, finally arriving at the recipient’s desktop, now occupying memory on their laptop.

While it’s true that several of the ‘way-stations’ erase the message after sending it on its way to make room for the next batch of messages, there is an average memory utilization for traffic that is quite large. A modern router must have many GB of RAM to process high volume traffic.

Considering all of the copies, it’s not unlikely for an average e-mail to be copied over 50 times from origin to destination. If even 10% of those copies are held more or less permanently (this is a source of much arguing between legal departments and IT departments – data retention policies are difficult to define), this means that your original 50kB e-mail now requires 250kB of storage. Ok, not much – until you realize that (per the stats published by the Radicati Group in 2010) approximately 294 billion e-mails are sent EACH DAY. Do the math…

Now here is where life gets interesting… the e-mail itself is ‘explicit data’, but many other aspects (call it metadata) of the mail, known as ‘implicit data’ are also stored, or at least counted and accumulated.

Unless you fully encrypt your e-mails (becoming more common, but still only practiced by a small fraction of 1% of users) anyone along the way can potentially read or copy your message. While, due to the sheer volume, no one without reason would target an individual message, what is often collected is implicit information:  how many mails a day does a user or group of users send? Where do they go? Is there a typical group of recipients, etc. Often times this implicit information is fair game even if the explicit data cannot be legally examined.

Many law enforcement agencies are permitted to examine header information (implicit data) without a warrant, while actually ‘reading’ the e-mail would require a search warrant. At a high level, sophisticated analysis using neural networks are what is done by agencies such as the NSA, CSE, MI5, and so on. They monitor traffic patterns – who is chatting to whom, in what groups, how often, and then collating these traffic patterns against real world activities and looking for correlation.

All of this just from looking at what happened to a single e-mail as it moved…

Now add in the history of web pages visited, online purchases, visits to social sites, posts to Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc. etc. Many people feel that they maintain a degree of privacy by using different e-mail addresses or different ‘personalities’ for different activities. In the past, this may have helped, but today little is gained by this attempt at obfuscation – mainly due to a technique known as orthogonal data mining.

Basically this means drilling into data from various ‘viewpoints’ and collating data that at first glance would be disparate. For instance, different social sites may be visited by what appears to be different users (with different usernames) – until a study of ‘implicit data’ [the ip address of the client computer] is seen to be the same…

Each web session a user conducts with a web site transmits a lot of implicit data:  time and duration of visit, pages visited, cross-links visited, ip address of the client, e-mail address and other ‘cookie’ information contained on the client computer, etc.

The real power of this kind of data mining comes from combining data from multiple web sites that are visited by a user. One can see that seemingly innocuous searches for medical conditions, coupled with subsequent visits to “Web MD” or other such sites could be assembled into a profile that may transmit more information to an online ad agency than the user may desire.

Or how about the fact that Facebook (to use one example) offers an API (programmatic interface) to developers that can be used to troll the massive database on people (otherwise known as Facebook) for virtually anything that is posted as ‘public’. Since that privacy permission state is the default (unless a user has chosen specifically to restrict it) – and now with the new Facebook Timeline becoming mandatory in the user interface – it is very easy for an automatic program to interrogate the Facebook archives for the personal history of anyone that has public postings – in chronological order.

Better keep all your stories straight… a prospective employer can now zoom right to your timeline and see if what you posted personally matches your resume… Like most things, there are two sides to all of this:  what propels this profiling is targeted advertising. While some of us may hate the concept, as long as goods and service vendors feel that advertising helps them sell – and targeted ads sell more effectively at lower cost – then we all benefit. These wonderful services that we call online apps are not free. The programmers, the servers, the electricity, the equipment all costs a LOT of money – someone has to pay for it.

Being willing to have some screen real estate used for ads is actually pretty cheap for most users. However, the flip side can be troubling. It is well known that certain governments routinely collect data from Facebook, Twitter and other sites on their citizens – probably not for these same citizens’ good health and peace of mind… Abusive spouses have tracked and injured their mates by using Foursquare and other location services, including GPS monitoring of mobile phones.

In general we collectively need to come to grips with the management of our ‘digital shadows.’ We cannot blindly give de facto ownership of our implicit or explicit data to others. In most cases today, companies take this data without telling the user, give or sell it without notice, and the user has little or no say in the matter.

What only a few years ago was an expensive process (sophisticated data mining) has now become a low cost commodity. With Google’s recent change in privacy policy, they have essentially come out as the world’s largest data mining aggregator. You can read details here, but now any visit to any part of the Google-verse is shared with ALL other bits of that ecosystem. And you can’t opt out. You can limit certain things, but even that is suspect:  in many cases users have found that data that was supposed to be deleted, or marked as private, in fact is not. Some companies (not necessarily Google) have been found to still have photos online years after being specifically served with take-down notices.

And these issues are not just relegated to PC’s on your desk… the proliferation of powerful mobile devices running location-based apps have become an advertiser’s dream… and sometimes a user’s nightmare…

No matter what is said or thought by users at this point, the ‘digital genie’ is long out of the bottle and she’s not going back in… our data, our digital shadow, is out there and is growing every day. The only choice left is for us collectively, as a world culture, to accept this and deal with it. As often is the case, technology outstrips law and social norms in terms of speed of adoption. Most attempts at any sort of unified legal regulation on the ‘internet’ have failed miserably.

But that doesn’t mean this should not happen, but such regulation must be sensible, uniformly enforceable, equitable and fairly applied – with the same sort of due process, ability for appeal and redress, etc. that is available in the ‘real world.’

The first steps toward a more equitable and transparent ‘shadow world’ would be a universal recognition that data about a person belongs to that person, not to whomever collected it. There are innumerable precedents for this in the ‘real world’, where a person’s words, music, art, etc. can be copyrighted and protected from unauthorized use. Of course there are exceptions (the ‘fair use’ policy, legitimate journalistic reporting, photography in public, etc.) but these exceptions are defined, and often refined through judicial process.

One such idea is presented here, whether this will gain traction is uncertain, but at least thought is being directed towards this important issue by some.

[shortly after first posting this I came across another article so germane to this topic I am including the link here – another interesting story on data mining and targeted advertising]

  • Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Connect with us:
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • YouTube
  • RSS
  • Follow Following
    • Parasam
    • Join 95 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Parasam
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...