Tag Archives: privacy

In Which the 9th Gets One Right

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s use of the output of its facial recognition software—imagery of individuals’ faces—without those individuals’ prior permission can be contested in court, according to the Ninth Circuit.  Facebook had demurred when the case was brought.

On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Facebook’s efforts to dismiss the ongoing class-action lawsuit, which could potentially require the company to pay billions in compensation.
The lawsuit dates back to 2015 when three Facebook users living in the state [Illinois] claimed the tech giant had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires companies to obtain consent when collecting their biometric information.

Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the court, wrote:

We conclude that the development of a face template using facial-recognition technology without consent (as alleged here) invades an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests.

Yewbetcha.  However, the courts, ultimately, the Supreme Court, need, in the end, to rule decisively that no company gets to steal a man’s personally identifying information—which his face assuredly is in this day of highly accurate facial recognition software—and theft is what it is when the data are taken without permission.

It’s even worse when these data, these facial recognition image outputs, are monetized for the benefit of the company in question with that done behind the individuals’ backs, too.

The Dangerous Mr Castro

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Joaquin Castro (D, TX) still pretends he did nothing wrong in telling the world in general and us Americans in particular how to locate 44 of us when he doxed those 44 and called them racists because their politics were not his.  Castro still insists they deserved to be called out; all he was trying to do was identify despicable persons whose “contributions are fueling a campaign of hate.”

Here is a telephone message one of Castro’s minions, who answered his call to arms, left on the phone of one of those whose location information he so carefully, maliciously exposed. Play the recording, ugly as it is, but be careful where you play it; the recording does not contain gentle language.

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1159845704614985728?s=20

But the danger is broader. Despicable and dangerous to us Americans as Castro’s doxing has been, this is typical of the Progressive-Democratic Party of which he is a part.

Unintended consequence? No, this is one of their deliberately sought-after consequences.  After all, if rhetoric is responsible for El Paso, as the Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates insist so vociferously, so maliciously, so is Castro’s rhetoric—in spades.  And his rhetoric is directed.

Castro didn’t merely incite a general, violent attitude.  Castro, with his doxing, said, “here are 44 Americans of whom I disapprove.  Here is a person of whom I disapprove.  Here’s where you can find them, here’s where they work and for whom they work.  Names and addresses.  Go get them.”

And the Progressive-Democratic Party and its candidates whole-heartedly, loudly approve.  This is the real campaign of hate; this is the Left’s malevolence given concrete action.

There’s Surveillance

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s surveillance.

The FBI is looking at ways to scan Facebook (and Twitter, et al.) postings with a view to proactively identify and reactively monitor threats to the United States and its interests.

In late 2016, following an investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union into social-media monitoring done by outside developers on behalf of law enforcement, Facebook and Twitter cracked down on those services and explicitly banned the use of their data for surveillance purposes….
Facebook’s ban allowed law-enforcement agencies to look at public profiles manually but not use software designed for large-scale collection and analysis of user data.

Because

the restrictions reflect a growing understanding that even information posted to a public social network can be misused when gathered in large quantities and paired with outside data sources.

But Facebook’s objections (and they’re not the only Big Tech objectors) are just a bit precious and not a little bit hypocritical. Facebook does exactly that sort of surveillance—with software, mind you—explicitly with a view to selling those connections to advertisers, and others.

The only difference is claimed purpose.

If such surveillance is a bad thing—and it most assuredly is—Facebook, et al., need to cut it out, too.

Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another.  Recall Congressman Joaquin Castro’s (D, TX, and brother of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Julian Castro) doxing of donors to a Trump campaign organization.

[T]he Texas congressman’s original tweet included a list of San Antonio residents who had donated large amounts to the Trump campaign, along with the names of their employers. …
“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump,” Castro tweeted, along with the Twitter handles of several owners of local businesses who apparently donated to Trump. …
The list—titled “WHO’S FUNDING TRUMP?”—had 44 names of donors and their employers.

Now Castro is claiming the list was no problem at all.

[He] is not backing down from his tweet outing Trump donors in San Antonio, insisting they weren’t “targeted or harassed” and that it wasn’t a “call to action.”

And that’s Castro’s straight-up lie.  The exposure itself was a targeting move, and a call to action—a call to harass those 44 folks who’s only wrong-doing was their effrontery of disagreeing with Castro.  Castro knows this, and in his own words to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (D, CA), Castro is too cowardly or agreeable to Party to admit his misbehavior and to correct it.

I’ll add a couple more words: Castro’s behavior is typically dishonest.

Castro’s claim that the data he published were already publicly available? A cynically offered sophistry. He didn’t need to broaden the availability.  He chose to do so, though, for his carefully developed and executed purposes.

Warrant-Proof Encryption

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General William Barr, in front of the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University, said that

“warrant-proof” encryption was “enabling dangerous criminals to cloak their communications and activities behind an essentially impenetrable digital shield.”

Of course.  And the FBI, in the aftermath of a mass-shooting in California a while back, (in)famously said that it needed Apple to crack the lock on one of the murderer’s smartphone so they could read it, insisting they were helpless without Apple’s cracking (and they demanded then, too, that Apple install encryption backdoors on its commercial cell phones).  Then the FBI hired a third party, which cracked the encryption forthwith.

And before that, crime investigations were hindered by lack of fingerprints because the crooks wore gloves.  Until DNA technology and testing opened other avenues of identification.  With search warrants required before that DNA could be sought out from individuals so that crime scene deposits could be matched.

And before that wired messaging, done privately, hindered crime investigations until wire tapping technology opened that for investigation.   With search warrants required before wire tapping could be done.

It’s always an arms race between the bad guys and the good guys.  And the good guys always win in the end, because they’re always able to get the better technology.

This time, The Wall Street Journal says, is different, though, via its subheadline at the link:

[Barr] offers no clear path forward

Of course, there is a clear path forward: get a warrant.  Do old-fashioned detective work.

And: hold onto that communications device. There’s no such thing as unbreakable (and so warrant-proof) encryption, there’s only encryption that can’t be broken today.