Is privacy a thing of the past?

[stayclassy]

Facebook is accessing the private text messages of smartphone users who have downloaded its internet app, according to a British newspaper investigation.

The social network giant admitted reading users' messages, saying it was using the data to help launch its own messaging service, London's Sunday Times reports.

The newspaper said other companies accessing smartphone users' personal data included Flickr, the dating site Badoo and Yahoo Messenger.

It was claimed that some apps enable companies to intercept phones calls, and that YouTube was capable of remotely operating accessing and operating users' smartphones to take photos and video.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8426028/facebook-accessing-users-texts

[ratmog]

shiiiiit.

[DriftGirl]

so sick of all these douche bag companies....

[Minuki]

British Newspapers

[FluidMotorUnion]

Can't trust Aussie news. Everything's all upside-down over there.

[skrapez]

opens phone and starts deleting all the nudes..........

[skrapez]

luckily when i downloaded google+ i caught the whole "auto upload" thing and shut it off immediately. Im sure some of the users would not have enough seeing some of my pictures.

[FluidMotorUnion]

http://consumerist.com/2012/02/facebook-were-not-reading-your-texts-but-we-can-if-we-wanna.html

oh hey, so maybe it is true.

but at the same time, we agreed to it by clicking 'confirm' at every angle, so the joke's on us i guess.

[stayclassy]

From the SMH today...

If you use Google, you may want to read this

Today is your last chance to adjust your Google privacy settings ahead of a major change to the way Google collects and collates data about you, its users.

From March 1, the company will begin to aggregate all the information it acquires about its users who are logged in to Google services into a single, unified pool of data.
This collectable information is what Columbia Law School professor and privacy advocate Eben Moglan refers to as the “data dandruff of life”. It comprises the obvious and the obscure. Details you expect to be logged as well as inferred data that is created as a result of joining the dots.

In the past, data collected in the course of a web search would be kept separate from, for instance, your YouTube viewing activity, your Gmail usage or your Map queries.

From Thursday, that will cease being the case.

And unless you specifically scrub your Google Web History, everything that has been collected about your past search activities and the sites you clicked through to, can be scooped up and combined with information gleaned from usage on other Google-owned sites.

The changes will allow Google to better target ads to users and in doing so, enable the company to extract a higher price from advertisers. This is not unusual; all web publishers are attempting to deliver more targeted advertising. But not all publishers can combine as much information as Google can.

In tandem with the impending changes, Google has taken the opportunity to unify some 60 separate privacy policies into one simpler document.

The company has also been up front about the coming changes and for the past few weeks has posted notices on its websites and emailed its users explaining the changes.

However, it’s fair to assume that many users have been oblivious to the new policies either because they may be more relaxed about privacy on the internet or because they haven’t drilled down into the detail.

Despite the advance warning, not everyone is comfortable about the impending changes. A letter sent to Google’s CEO Larry Page by a group of US state attorneys-general earlier this month characterised the move as an invasion of consumer privacy and criticised the company for failing to provide a proper ability to opt out.

The US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that disabling Web History in your Google account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information. But it does mean the information will be partially anonymised after 18 months and that Google will abstain from using it for certain purposes.

Many people are comfortable with a lowering of the privacy bar that has come about in recent years as a result of the advent social networking sites such as MySpace and then Facebook.

However, if you’re not one of those, here’s how you can quarantine your Google Search History from the new data aggregation process.

Go to the Google History page and sign in.

If your Web History has been activated, you should see a button which says: “Remove All Web History”. Then click “Okay” to confirm.

(If you only see: "Turn Web History On" - then you don't need to do anything.)

When this is done you will see a “Resume” button, which you can click if at any time in the future you change your mind.

If you want even more control, you can also try these additional tools:

Google Dashboard: A place where you can control the data associated with your Google Account.

Ads Preferences Manager: A place where you can make changes to the ads you see, including blocking specific advertisers or opting-out of seeing personalised ads completely.

Eject button: And if you're still not satisfied and want to opt out altogether, Google provides a one stop shop to opt out of everything and take your "data dandruff" with you.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/if-...#ixzz1nkNDhlDW

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/if-you-use-google-you-may-want-to-read-this-20120229-1u1i9.html

[Anonymoose]

I've noticed in the last 6 months to a year that ads are coming up more specific to what has been searched on my computer so I bet this has already been happening for a long time. They probably only announced it because they have enough data or have a way around the settings controls ^^^

[stinkinrich]

As if my wang couldnt be seen on the net anymore than it already is...

























i jk

[Anonymoose]

I swear your on all the enlargement ads now, before photo + photoshop results

[Jesus Christ]

i have noticed that any and every website i go to has Mishimoto rad ads everywhere.

god damn google.

[mrg7243]

Google chrome + adblock and I dont see any of that shit

[stayclassy]

Makes me wonder if drop outs were because of bad service or phone jammers. I am very considerate of others if I'm in a populated area as I know how annoying people talking on the phone can be. So I endeavour to walk away if I have to take a call or make it brief and tell the person I'll call them back.. either way,after reading some of the "stories" from the below article,I think these jammers deserve a smack upside the head.

'Invading my privacy': it's not just Eric jamming phones.
Yesterday's story about Eric the mobile phone jammer of Philadelphia in the US is no isolated case - people from Sydney and Melbourne are using illegal mobile phone jammers too.

Fairfax Media spoke to Sydney woman Kylie of Bondi, 31, who said that just two months ago a man on a bus admitted to jamming her calls. Fairfax has also spoken to a Melbourne teen named Andrew who admits to jamming calls.
Separately, a comment left on yesterday's article by a Sydney reader also said that they used a mobile phone jammer, "usually to block out a rude person talking way too loudly and upsetting other commuters".

"Unfortunately some people were not taught how to be considerate and we need to take matters into our own hands," the Sydneysider said. They didn't return an email request for comment.

Furthermore, a Telstra spokeswoman said that the telco had dealt with mobile phone jammers.

Under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the communications regulator ACMA can take action against those that use jammers. Penalties include up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to $165,000.

Use of jammers in Melbourne

Melbourne teen Andrew, who spoke on the condition of not using his last name, said he successfully imported two jammers from China and Singapore, where they are not illegal, for "shits and giggles" (to play tricks on people).

He provided receipts to prove their purchase and said that Customs were "ridiculously lax" when it came to seizing jammers. Comment is being sought from Customs.

He purchased the jammers from the Dealextreme website for about $40 each in mid 2009, he said, adding that they were marked as "electronics devices" when imported.

He said he used the jammers in Melbourne Central's food court, on Collins Street in Melbourne's CBD, and at school. "One of my friends kept texting someone while I was trying to work, so I turned [the jammer] on and he went to another room to get signal," Andrew recalled when he used a jammer at school.

When the jammer was used at Melbourne Central he said people would often complain about their calls being dropped by muttering to themselves about their telco being the problem.

Another time he used one of the jammers he was walking along Collins Street in Melbourne's CBD and spotted a man he said was probably in his mid 30s and in a suit "on what sounded like a somewhat important business call". The teen then turned on his jammer and five seconds later the call dropped, he said.

The man took his phone off his ear, saw that the call had dropped, blamed his telco Optus, and then put his phone in his pocket, "presumably to try [ring the person back] later", the teen said.

Andrew said his jammer worked up to 10 metres away from a target but couldn't block Telstra's Next G network because of the frequency in which it transmitted - something he was looking to modify.

Use of jammers in Sydney

In another case of jamming occurring in Australia, Sydney woman Kylie, of Bondi, said she had been affected by a mobile phone jammer on January 29 this year at approximately 12.30pm whilst she was on a bus.

"I was travelling on a 387 bus from Bondi Junction to Rose Bay to go to a function at my in laws," she recalled.

"I was trying to contact my bank to check my account balance with full reception and then the call just dropped out. I then tried to call my friend. I spoke to her for about 40 seconds and then ... the call dropped out [again]."

At first Kylie suspected that the 2-year-old son of her friend had hung up on her but then a man she estimated was about 60 "said to me 'Try make that call again it should work now'.

"I was like 'How do you know this?' And then he said to me it was him that cut the call and pulled out a transmitter exactly like the one that was shown in the picture from your article yesterday."

The man then went on to claim, according to Kylie, that he was testing the jammer for it to be approved by the government to stop people talking and driving.

"I think he was pretty legit but still who knows, there are so many crazy people out there these days," Kylie said. "I was extremely angry about this as I found it very intrusive and felt as though he was invading my privacy. My phone call to my friend was very quiet and I was not disturbing anyone."

She said she told the man "exactly what I thought of what he was doing".

"I said 'You are lucky I'm not a big guy or someone that would want to threaten you or punch your face'. He then said to me that he has had a few confrontations like that."

Kylie said she then thought to herself after the bus ride about what would occur if she was making an emergency call or had no credit left. "Who does this man think he is?"

A NSW Transport spokesman said: "There is no testing of mobile phone jamming devices being undertaken by any NSW Transport Agency. Bus drivers can seek police assistance for anti-social behaviour which takes place on buses if necessary."

What the law says

In Australia, the supply, possession and operation of jamming devices which are likely to substantially interfere with public mobile telecommunication services is prohibited, according communications regulator ACMA.

The Australian Federal Police, NSW Police, Victorian Police and the ACMA were all contacted for comment about whether any prosecutions had been made. Victoria Police said no-one in Victoria had been prosecuted in the past ten years. The others are yet to respond.

In December 2007, however, Fairfax Media's theage.com.au reported that in June of the same year the owner of a phone jammer in Townsville, Queensland, was convicted for using a jammer device.

"ACMA referred the suspected breach to the Department for Public Prosecutions after complaints from several carriers that interference had compromised network performance," ACMA spokesman Donald Robertson said at the time.

Robertson also said at the time that the ACMA did "not monitor the importation of prohibited devices", although "it responds to complaints or referrals made to it by carriers or agencies regarding suspected breaches of the act".

But the following day after his comment was made, ACMA spokesman Blake Murdoch said: "If ACMA became aware of the presence of prohibited devices, or attempts to import or sell prohibited devices, it would take compliance action."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/m...#ixzz1oPV2Ba2u