Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts

Sep 25, 2024

Privacy? What Privacy?

Whoever told you there was something called privacy - since the 1840s anyway - lied to you.




1870s – 1940s: Telephone

This timeline is provided to help show how the dominant form of communication changes as rapidly as innovators develop new technologies.

A brief historical overview: The printing press was the big innovation in communications until the telegraph was developed. Printing remained the key format for mass messages for years afterward, but the telegraph allowed instant communication over vast distances for the first time in human history. Telegraph usage faded as radio became easy to use and popularized; as radio was being developed, the telephone quickly became the fastest way to communicate person-to-person; after television was perfected and content for it was well developed, it became the dominant form of mass-communication technology; the internet came next, and newspapers, radio, telephones, and television are being rolled into this far-reaching information medium.

As with many innovations, the idea for the telephone came along far sooner than it was brought to reality. While Italian innovator Antonio Meucci is credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1849, and Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a phone in 1854, Alexander Graham Bell won the first U.S. patent for the device in 1876. Bell began his research in 1874 and had financial backers who gave him the best business plan for bringing it to market.

In 1877-78, the first telephone line was constructed, the first switchboard was created and the first telephone exchange was in operation. Three years later, almost 49,000 telephones were in use. In 1880, Bell (in the photo below) merged this company with others to form the American Bell Telephone Company and in 1885 American Telegraph and Telephone Company (AT&T) was formed; it dominated telephone communications for the next century. At one point in time, Bell System employees purposely denigrated the U.S. telephone system to drive down stock prices of all phone companies and thus make it easier for Bell to acquire smaller competitors.

Alexander Graham Bell Using a TelephoneBy 1900 there were nearly 600,000 phones in Bell’s telephone system; that number shot up to 2.2 million phones by 1905, and 5.8 million by 1910. In 1915 the transcontinental telephone line began operating. By 1907, AT&T had a near monopoly on phone and telegraph service, thanks to its purchase of Western Union. Its president, Theodore Vail, urged at the time that a monopoly could most efficiently operate the nation’s far-flung communications network. At the urging of the public and AT&T competitors, the government began to investigate the company for anti-trust violations, thus forcing the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment, an agreement between AT&T vice president Nathan Kingsbury and the office of the U.S. Attorney General. Under this commitment, AT&T agreed to divest itself of Western Union and provide long-distance services to independent phone exchanges.

During World War I, the government nationalized telephone and telegraph lines in the United States from June 1918 to July 1919, when, after a joint resolution of Congress, President Wilson issued an order putting them under the direction of the U.S. Post Office. A year later, the systems were returned to private ownership, AT&T resumed its monopolistic hold, and by 1934 the government again acted, this time agreeing to allow it to operate as a “regulated monopoly” under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Public utility commissions in state and local jurisdictions were appointed regulators of AT&T and the nation’s independent phone companies, while the FCC regulated long-distance services conducted across state lines. They set the rates the phone companies could charge and determined what services and equipment each could offer. This stayed in effect until AT&T’s forced divestiture in 1984, the conclusion of a U.S. Department of Justice anti-trust suit that had been filed in 1974. The all-powerful company had become popularly known and disparaged as “Ma Bell.” AT&T’s local operations were divided into seven independent Regional Bell Operating Companies, known as the “Baby Bells.” AT&T became a long-distance-services company.

By 1948, the 30 millionth phone was connected in the United States; by the 1960s, there were more than 80 million phone hookups in the U.S. and 160 million in the world; by 1980, there were more than 175 million telephone subscriber lines in the U.S. In 1993, the first digital cellular network went online in Orlando, Florida; by 1995 there were 25 million cellular phone subscribers, and that number exploded at the turn of the century, with digital cellular phone service expected to replace land-line phones for most U.S. customers by as early as 2010.

World Changes Due to the Telephone

First Prototype of a PhoneWithin 50 years of its invention, the telephone had become an indispensable tool in the United States. In the late 19th century, people raved about the telephone’s positive aspects and ranted about what they anticipated would be negatives. Their key points, recorded by Ithiel de Sola Pool in his 1983 book “Forecasting the Telephone,” mirror nearly precisely what was later predicted about the impact of the internet.

For example, people said the telephone would: help further democracy; be a tool for grassroots organizers; lead to additional advances in networked communications; allow social decentralization, resulting in a movement out of cities and more flexible work arrangements; change marketing and politics; alter the ways in which wars are fought; cause the postal service to lose business; open up new job opportunities; allow more public feedback; make the world smaller, increasing contact between peoples of all nations and thus fostering world peace; increase crime and aid criminals; be an aid for physicians, police, fire, and emergency workers; be a valuable tool for journalists; bring people closer together, decreasing loneliness and building new communities; inspire a decline in the art of writing; have an impact on language patterns and introduce new words; and someday lead to an advanced form of the transmission of intelligence.

Privacy was also a major concern. As is the case with the Internet, the telephone worked to improve privacy while simultaneously leaving people open to invasions of their privacy. In the beginning days of the telephone, people would often have to journey to the local general store or some other central point to be able to make and receive calls. Most homes weren’t wired together, and eavesdroppers could hear you conduct your personal business as you used a public phone. Switchboard operators who connected the calls would also regularly invade people’s privacy. The early house-to-house phone systems were often “party lines” on which a number of families would receive calls, and others were free to listen in and often chose to do so.

Today, while most homes are wired and people can travel freely, conducting their phone conversations wirelessly, wiretapping and other surveillance methods can be utilized to listen in on their private business. People’s privacy can also be interrupted by unwanted phone calls from telemarketers and others who wish to profit in some way – just as Internet e-mail accounts receive unwanted sales pitches, known as “spam.”

Yet, the invention of the telephone also worked to increase privacy in many ways. It permitted people to exchange information without having to put it in writing, and a call on the phone came to replace such intrusions on domestic seclusion as unexpected visits from relatives or neighbors and the pushy patter of door-to-door salesmen. The same could be said for the Internet – privacy has been enhanced in some ways because e-mail and instant messaging have reduced the frequency of the jangling interruptions previously dished out by our telephones.

Past Predictions About the Future of the Telephone

President Rutherford B. Hayes to Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 on viewing the telephone for the first time:
“That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?”

Bell offered to sell his telephone patent to Western Union for $100,000 in 1876, when he was struggling with the business. An account that is believed by some to be apocryphal, but still recounted in many telephone histories states that the committee appointed to investigate the offer filed the following report:
“We do not see that this device will be ever capable of sending recognizable speech over a distance of several miles. Messer Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their ‘telephone devices’ in every city. The idea is idiotic on the face of it. Furthermore, why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States? … Mr. G.G. Hubbard’s fanciful predictions, while they sound rosy, are based on wild-eyed imagination and lack of understanding of the technical and economic facts of the situation, and a posture of ignoring the obvious limitations of his device, which is hardly more than a toy … This device is inherently of no use to us. We do not recommend its purchase.”

As reported in the book “Bell” by Robert V. Bruce, Kate Field, a British reporter who knew Bell, predicted in 1878 that eventually:
“While two persons, hundreds of miles apart, are talking together, they will actually see each other.”

Sir William Preece, chief engineer for the British Post Office, 1878, as reported in “The Telephone in a Changing World” by Marion May Dilts:
“There are conditions in America which necessitate the use of such instruments more than here. Here we have a superabundance of messengers, errand boys and things of that kind … The absence of servants has compelled America to adopt communications systems for domestic purposes.”

AT&T chief engineer and Electrical Review writer John J. Carty projected in his “Prophets Column” in 1891:
“A system of telephony without wires seems one of the interesting possibilities, and the distance on the earth through which it is possible to speak is theoretically limited only by the curvation of the earth.”

Carty also wrote:
“Someday we will build up a world telephone system, making necessary to all peoples the use of a common language or common understanding of languages, which will join all the people of the earth into one brotherhood. There will be heard throughout the earth a great voice coming out of the ether which will proclaim, ‘Peace on earth, good will towards men.'”

In the 1912 article “The Future Home Theatre” in The Independent, S.C. Gilfillan wrote:
“There are two mechanical contrivances … each of which bears in itself the power to revolutionize entertainment, doing for it what the printing press did for books. They are the talking motion picture and the electric vision apparatus with telephone. Either one will enable millions of people to see and hear the same performance simultaneously .. or successively from kinetoscope and phonographic records … These inventions will become cheap enough to be … in every home … You will have the home theatre of 1930, oh ye of little faith.”

Apr 24, 2022

This Connected World

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

(Who watches the watchers?)

In about 2002 or 2003, Don Rumsfeld and Tom Ridge were pimping Total Information Awareness as part of their anti-terrorism theatrics - and we jumped up and down on their heads for it, as any decent patriotic American should have done.

So the fuckers went private with it and did it anyway.

Fuckers.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Ask Help Desk: Cell carriers can use your web history for ads

Here is how you can opt out of their advertising programs that run on your personal data


When you signed up for your mobile plan, your carrier may have signed you up for an extra program that uses data including your Internet history to target you with ads.

I visited my own Verizon account settings and found that yep, I was enrolled in what the company calls “Custom Experience.” Not only do I have no memory of saying yes, I had no idea wireless carriers were in the business of peeking in on my activities and using that information to market to me. And my blissful ignorance works in favor of the company.

At Help Desk, we read privacy policies so you can save time. This week, Ron, a curious reader from Houston, inspired us to dive deeper into mobile carriers. I read the privacy policies from the three major wireless carriers, and my eyeballs are only bleeding a little. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile have some less than great privacy practices hiding in plain sight.

Depending on the carrier, it can draw on your browsing history, location data, call logs and even app use to learn things about you and nudge you to spend more money on products from themselves or third-party companies. The good news is that you can opt out whenever you want, and we are going to show you how.

Are there other privacy policies you want us to check?
Send them our way at yourhelpdesk@washpost.com.

What data do they want?

AT&T has a “Relevant Advertising” program in which customers are automatically opted in, and the company draws on information including your browsing history and videos you have watched to help show you targeted ads. If you sign up for “Enhanced Relevant Advertising,” your device location and call history are also fair game.

Verizon has a program that works similarly. Customers appear to be automatically opted into its “Custom Experience,” which means the company can use your browsing history and data from your apps to help target ads. The company says it “makes efforts” not to target you based on any adult sites you visit, health conditions and sexual orientation. Thanks, Verizon. If you said yes to “Custom Experience Plus” at any point, the company can also use your location data and call logs.

In comparison, T-Mobile seems relatively tame when it comes to this information. It says it does not use any browsing, precise location or call history data for its ad program, but it can use your “mobile app usage” and data on video viewing, according to its website.

What if I never opt out?

According to the companies, staying enrolled in these programs will improve your experience by showing you more relevant ads. If targeted ads spark joy and you are fine with your cell carrier using your information to make money, you can stop reading now and pour yourself a lemonade.

But these programs may let not just cell carriers but also their third-party partners benefit from your personal data. T-Mobile states clearly in its privacy policy that it can share inferences based on your data with third parties. AT&T also leaves room in its policy to share your information, but a spokesman told me the company is not doing it, though theoretically it can start any time.

Verizon says that if you choose to stay in “Custom Experience,” the company uses data including your Internet history to put you into interest categories like “sports lover.” A spokeswoman said the program does not involve any third-party targeted advertising, but she declined to tell me whether Verizon shares inferences with outside companies.

As always, it can be hard to know for sure where your information ends up. T-Mobile appears to be the only carrier of the three with a public list of its third-party partners.

Can I change my mind?

You can opt out of these ad programs any time. AT&T customers can opt out by signing into att.com, navigating to the “Consent Dashboard” and scrolling to the section called “Control How We Use Your Data.” Opt out of “Relevant Advertising” and check that you are not signed up for “Enhanced Relevant Advertising.”

Verizon customers can opt out of the “Custom Experience” program by going to their privacy settings in the My Verizon app. While you are there, you should also check that you have not said yes to “Custom Experience Plus.”

T-Mobile says customers can opt out by opening the app, going to “Advertising and Analytics” then “Use My Data To Make Ads More Relevant To Me.” Turn the toggle off so that it turns gray. On the website, go to “My Account” then “Profile.” Click “Privacy and Notifications” then “Advertising and Analytics,” then “Use My Data To Make Ads More Relevant To Me.” Turn the toggle off.

Two of my Washington Post colleagues tried to opt out on T-Mobile accounts, and both got an error message saying it “looks like we got our wires crossed.” When they tried via the website, it froze or showed an error message. A T-Mobile spokeswoman said the company had not heard of any problems but was working to address the issue. Keep in mind that opting out does not necessarily stop carriers from collecting your data or marketing their own products to you.

Should I be worried?

I would recommend opting out of all these ad programs. It is tough to determine exactly what personal information these companies are sharing with whom, and it is shady for the companies to opt you in by default.

It will be tempting for any company with as much data access as a cell carrier to make some money off your information. What matters is that customers are given clear descriptions of how our data is monetized and that companies stop opting us in by default.

hat tip = WT

Mar 30, 2017

It Gets Worse


The Daddy State approacheth.

“A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila.” 
--Mitch Ratcliffe


Soon every mistake you’ve ever made online will not only be available to your internet service provider (ISP) — it will be available to any corporation or foreign government who wants to see those mistakes.

Thanks to last week’s US Senate decision (update March 28: and today’s House decision), ISPs can sell your entire web browsing history to literally anyone without your permission. The only rules that prevented this are all being repealed, and won’t be reinstated any time soon (it would take an act of congress).

ISPs can also sell any information they want from your online activity and mobile app usage — financial information, medical information, your children’s information, your social security number — even the contents of your emails.

They can even sell your geolocation information. That’s right, ISPs can take your exact physical location from minute to minute and sell it to a third party.

You might be wondering: who benefits from repealing these protections? Other than those four monopoly ISPs that control America’s “last mile” of internet cables and cell towers?

No one. No one else benefits in any way. Our privacy — and our nation’s security — have been diminished, just so a few mega-corporations can make a little extra cash.


I'll take exception to that last bit - about how nobody benefits in any way.  My basic skepticism (ie: my cynical - tho' perfectly justifiable - paranoia) is waving flags like it's laundry day at Redneck Central Headquarters.

This looks a whole lot like standard Political Duplicity - privacy snoops disguised as profiteers to give the illusion of separation from Officialdom, so nobody in government is accountable to voters for the inevitable fuckery.

And the bonus is that the ISP cartel can peddle our information to Da Gubmint (aka: the Lunker Customer everybody's always gunnin' for, so you know it'll happen), which will confer upon us the supreme privilege of paying them to fuck us over - again.

Cronies get richer
Congress Critters get re-elected
We get fucked

'Twas ever thus with the Radical Right, and ever thus 'twill be.

Anyway, privacy is pretty much the whole banana in a free state, and there seems to an even fuckier fuckery afoot.

Roe v Wade is based on the concept of a Consitutional Right To Privacy. If this ISP thing stands up to challenge in the courts, kiss that one good-bye. And then it's really open season on everybody's rights across the board.

Now, I realize I'm pretty close to the Slippery Slope Fallacy, but these things happen step-by-step, so I'm just trying to follow it out to the logical extreme. And it's not like we haven't seen some of this shit already. The bullshit SCOTUS ruling on Voting Rights comes to mind.

So how's that Gorsuch appointment looking now?

Mar 10, 2017

Run It Like A Business

A smart guy told us back in the 90s that the 21st century would be about privacy.

I hate the notion of "prophesy fulfilled" and so I'll just ignore it because it's inconvenient, but damn, son - kinda looks like that's what's happening.

Sharon Begley at STAT
A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.
Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.
The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.
- and -
Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.
So what's it actually about? It has great potential to be about shenanigans and fuckery.

But in the context of the 4th amendment, it's about none of your goddamned business.

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nov 19, 2013

Unwitting

Remember "Total Information Awareness"?

It's been kinda interesting to hear how outraged people said they were when they found out NSA was scooping up emails and phone calls, and then to see how it's all but become a non-issue lately.  I'm not saying they should've done everything it appears they've done - there's a bunch of it that's flat out illegal, and I stand by my "fuck you, NSA" campaign all the way.  But really, how hard do we make those guys work, considering all the little pieces of info we leave lying around almost every minute of every day?



Privacy only works if you close the door and draw the curtains once in a while.

Jun 21, 2013

Dot, Meet Dot

Not to get too magical-mystical here, but when we're talking about the FISA Court and USA PATRIOT Act and the shenanigans at NSA and the FBI, etc - I think I have to go along with Mark Udall; mostly anyway - and Obama too btw.  There has to be a balance, which (imo) we've let get away from us in a pretty big way.


Balance is kinda the key to the whole self-governance thingie.  We have to continue to develop better ways to catch the bad guys after the fact - and better yet, prevent the bad guys from doin' the dirt in the first place - without making it more probable that some tin-plated martinet will abuse the power, and turn it to his own ends.  (Thank you, Capt Obvious)

Here's 5 minutes of Udall on NPR, talking about what he and Ron Wyden are proposing:



Almost at the very end, Udall makes a point that kinda blew up in my brain.  He said (paraphrasing), "...privacy is the ultimate form of freedom".

If I make a not-entirely-silly leap, I can say Privacy = Anonymity; and in a still not-so-silly way, Anonymity = Invisibility; and Invisibility is very much the be-all and end-all of the super powers.

On the one hand, if nobody can see you, then nobody can fuck with you.  This is mostly a very good thing for individuals.

But on the other hand, if you can't be seen, then you can't be held to account for anything you do.  This is always a very bad thing for societies.

So, balance.  Aye, there's the rub.

hat tip = Little Green Footballs