Showing posts with label data retention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data retention. Show all posts
Wednesday 16 May 2018
An insider has finally admitted what any digital native would be well aware of - your personal health information entered into a national database will be no safer that having it up on Facebook
Remembering that a federal government national screening program, working with with a private entity, has already accessed personal information from Medicare without consent of registered individuals and entered these persons into a research program - again without consent - and these individuals apparently could not easily opt out of being listed as a research subject but were often only verbally offered the option of declining to take part in testing, which presumably meant that health data from other sources was still capable of being collected about them by the program. One has to wonder what the Turnbull Government and medical establishment actually consider patient rights to be in practice when it comes to "My Health Record".
Healthcare IT News, 4 May 2018:
Weeks
before the anticipated announcement of the My Health Record opt out period, an
insider’s leak has claimed the Australian Digital Health Agency has decided associated
risks for consumers “will not be explicitly discussed on the website”.
As
the ADHA heads towards the imminent announcement of the three-month window in
which Australians will be able to opt out of My Health Record before being
signed up to the online health information repository, the agency was caught by
surprise today when details emerged in a blog post by GP and member of the
steering group for the national expansion of MHR, Dr Edwin Kruys.
Kruys wrote that MHR offers “clear benefits”
to healthcare through providing clinicians with greater access to discharge
summaries, pathology and diagnostic reports, prescription records and more, but
said “every digital solution has its pros and cons” and behind-the-scenes risk
mitigation has been one of the priorities of the ADHA. However, he claimed
Australians may not be made aware of the risks involved in allowing their
private medical information to be shared via the Federal Government’s system.
“It
has been decided that the risks associated with the MyHR will not be explicitly
discussed on the website,” Kruys wrote.
“This
obviously includes the risk of cyber attacks and public confidence in the
security of the data.”
The
most contentious contribution in the post related to the secondary use of
Australians’ health information, the framework of which has yet to be announced
by Health Minister Greg Hunt.
Contacted
by HITNA, the agency moved swiftly to have Kruys delete the paragraph
relating to secondary use.
In
the comment that has since been removed, Kruys wrote, “Many consumers and
clinicians regard secondary use of the MyHR data as a risk. The MyHR will
contain a ‘toggle’, giving consumers the option to switch secondary use of
their own data on or off.”
Under
the My Health Records Act 2012, health information in MHR may be
collected, used and disclosed “for any purpose” with the consent of the
healthcare recipient. One of the functions of the system operator is “to
prepare and provide de-identified data for research and public health
purposes”.
Before
these provisions of the act will be implemented, a framework for secondary use
of MHR systems data must be established.
HealthConsult
was engaged to assist the Federal Government in developing a draft framework
and implementation plan for the process and within its public consultation
process in 2017 received supportive submissions from the Australasian College
of Health Informatics, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and numerous
research institutes, universities, and clinicians’ groups.
Computerworld, 14 May 2018:
Use of both de-identified
data and, in some circumstances, identifiable data will be permitted under a
new government framework for so-called “secondary use” of data derived from the
national eHealth record system. Linking data from the My Health Record system
to other datasets is also allowed under some circumstances.
The Department of Health
last year commissioned
the development of the framework for using My Health Record data for
purposes other than its primary purpose of providing healthcare to an
individual.
Secondary use can
include research, policy analysis and work on improving health services.
Under the new framework,
individuals who don’t want their data used for secondary purposes will be
required to opt-out. The opt-out process is separate from the procedure
necessary for individuals who don’t want an eHealth
record automatically created for them (the government last year
decided to shift to an opt-out
approach for My Health Record)……
Access to the data will
be overseen by an MHR Secondary Use of Data Governance Board, which will
approve applications to access the system.
Any Australian-based
entity with the exception of insurance agencies will be permitted to apply for
access the MHR data. Overseas-based applicants “must be working in
collaboration with an Australian applicant” for a project and will not have
direct access to MHR data.
The data drawn from the
records may not leave Australia, but under the framework there is scope for
data analyses and reports produced using the data to be shared internationally……
The Department of Health
came under fire in 2016 after it released for download supposedly
anonymised health data. Melbourne University researchers were able to
successfully re-identify a range of data.
Last month the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner revealed that health
service providers accounted for almost a quarter of the breaches reported
in the first six weeks of operation of the Notifiable Data Breach (NDB) scheme.
The Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
Australians who don't
want a personal electronic health record will have from July 16 to October 15
to opt-out of the national scheme the federal government announced on Monday.
Every Australian will
have a My Health Record unless they choose to opt-out during the three-month
period, according to the Australian Digital Health Agency.
The
announcement follows the release of the government’s secondary use of data
rules earlier this month that inflamed concerns of patient privacy and data
use.
Under the framework,
medical information would be made available to third parties from 2020 -
including some identifying data for public health and research purposes -
unless individuals opted out.
In other news.......
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
A cyber attack on Family
Planning NSW's website has exposed the personal information of up to 8000
clients, including women who have booked appointments or sought advice
about abortion, contraception and other services.
Clients received an
email from FPNSW on Monday alerting them that their website had been hacked on
Anzac Day.
The compromised data
contained information from roughly 8000 clients who had contacted FPNSW via its
website in the past 2½ years to make appointments or give feedback.
It included the personal
details clients entered via an online form, including names, contact details,
dates of birth and the reason for their enquiries….
The website was secured
by 10am on April 26, 2018 and all web database information has been secure
since that time
SBS
News, 14 May
2018:
Clients were told Family
Planning NSW was one of several agencies targeted by cybercriminals who
requested a bitcoin ransom on April 25…..
The not-for-profit has
five clinics in NSW, with more than 28,000 people visiting every year.
The most recent Digital
Rights Watch State of Digital Rights (May 2018) report can be found here.
The report’s
8 recommendations include:
Repeal
of the mandatory metadata retention scheme
Introduction
of a Commonwealth statutory civil cause of action for serious invasions of
privacy
A
complete cessation of commercial espionage conducted by the Australian Signals
Directorate
Changes
to copyright laws so they are flexible, transparent and provide due process to
users
Support
for nation states to uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child in the digital age
Expand
the definition of sensitive information under the Privacy Act to specifically
include behavioural biometrics
Increase
measures to educate private businesses and other entities of their
responsibilities under the Privacy Act regarding behavioural biometrics, and
the right to pseudonymity
Introduce
a compulsory register of entities that collect static and behavioural biometric
data, to provide the public with information about the entities that are
collecting biometric data and for what purpose
The
loopholes opened with the 2011 reform of the FOI laws should be closed by
returning ASD, ASIO, ASIS and other intelligence agencies to the ambit of the
FOI Act, with the interpretation of national security as a ground for refusal
of FOI requests being reviewed and narrowed
Telecommunications
providers and internet platforms must develop processes to increase
transparency in content moderation and, make known what content was removed or triggered an account suspension.
Friday 11 May 2018
File this under "Yet Another National Database" cross referenced wih "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
6 May 2018:
A massive breach of
Commonweath Bank data exposed last week has raised security fears around a new
national database of Australian bank customers, as Labor pushes for a
delay to part of the scheme's scheduled introduction in less than two months.
The database - set to go
live on July 1 - will include the details of every person who has taken
out a loan or a credit card, along with their repayment history.
The Mandatory
Comprehensive Credit Reporting scheme was a recommendation of the 2014
financial system inquiry and is designed to give lenders access to a
deeper, richer set of data to ensure loans are only being approved for
people who can afford to repay them.
The new requirements
will first apply to the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ Bank, Westpac and National
Australia Bank, given they account for up to 80 per cent of lending to
households.
But the collection of
sensitive data by private companies has raised concerns in the wake of several
high-profile data breaches, including the disappearance of 20 million
customers records from the Commonwealth Bank.
The Financial Rights
Legal Centre and the Consumer Action Law Centre claim the financial
details of millions of Australians will be vulnerable under the new scheme -
which includes positive and negative credit histories.
Financial Rights Legal
Centre policy officer Julia Davis said the development "was a major
intrusion into our financial privacy".
"I don’t think
Australians realise this is about to happen," she said.
The legislation states
all credit reporting bodies must store the information on a cloud service that
has been assessed by the Australian Signals Directorate. It also contains a
provision allowing banks to stop supplying customer data to credit providers
should there be a major security breach.
Ms Davis said the
oversight was welcome but the internal systems of credit reporting bodies
remained "completely opaque."
"Once that data
goes live in the one place you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube,"
she said.
Equifax, one of the
companies which will have access to the data, had its systems in the US hacked
last year, exposing the personal information of 143 million Americans and
triggering to the resignation of its chief executive.
It is also being sued by
consumer watchdog the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over
allegations it misrepresented its product to consumers by asking them to pay
for their own credit histories which are usually available online for free.
The company's general
manager of external relations, Matthew Strassberg, said Equifax had "only
been a marquee above the door for six months," after the US giant took
over the Australian operation formerly known as Veda.
He said the credit
reporting business would provide "a 360 degree picture."
"A bank will have a
very deep insight into what they know of you," he told Fairfax Media.
Mr Strassberg said he
recognised that Australians were concerned about data security…..
Monday 23 April 2018
Away from the spotlight of congressional hearings Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc. show their true colours – implementing weaker privacy protection for 1.5 billion users
The Guardian, 19 April 2018:
Facebook has moved
more than 1.5 billion users out of reach of European privacy law, despite a
promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.
In a tweak to its terms
and conditions, Facebook is shifting the responsibility for all users outside
the US, Canada and the EU from its international HQ in Ireland to its main
offices in California. It means that those users will now be on a site governed
by US law rather than Irish law.
The move is due to come
into effect shortly before General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into
force in Europe on 25 May. Facebook is liable under GDPR for fines of up to 4%
of its global turnover – around $1.6bn – if it breaks the new data protection
rules.
The shift highlights the
cautious phrasing Facebook has applied to its promises around GDPR. Earlier
this month, when asked whether his company would promise GDPR protections
to its users worldwide, Zuckerberg demurred. “We’re still nailing down details
on this, but it should directionally be, in spirit, the whole thing,” he said.
A week later, during his
hearings in front of the US Congress, Zuckerberg was again
asked if he would promise that GDPR’s protections would apply to all
Facebook users. His answer was affirmative – but only referred to GDPR
“controls”, rather than “protections”. Worldwide, Facebook has rolled
out a suite of tools to let users exercise their rights under GDPR,
such as downloading and deleting data, and the company’s new
consent-gathering controls are similarly universal.
Facebook told Reuters
“we apply the same privacy protections everywhere, regardless of whether your
agreement is with Facebook Inc or Facebook Ireland”. It said the change was
only carried out “because EU law requires specific language” in mandated
privacy notices, which US law does not.
In a statement to the
Guardian, it added: “We have been clear that we are offering everyone who uses
Facebook the same privacy protections, controls and settings, no matter where
they live. These updates do not change that.”
Privacy researcher
Lukasz Olejnik disagreed, noting that the change carried large ramifications
for the affected users. “Moving around one and a half billion users into other
jurisdictions is not a simple copy-and-paste exercise,” he said.
“This is a major and
unprecedented change in the data privacy landscape. The change will amount to
the reduction of privacy guarantees and the rights of users, with a number of
ramifications, notably for consent requirements. Users will clearly lose
some existing rights, as US standards are lower than those in Europe.
“Data protection
authorities from the countries of the affected users, such as New Zealand and
Australia, may want to reassess this situation and analyse the situation.
Even
if their data privacy regulators are less rapid than those in Europe, this
event is giving them a chance to act. Although it is unclear how active they
will choose to be, the global privacy regulation landscape is changing, with
countries in the world refining their approach. Europe is clearly on the
forefront of this competition, but we should expect other countries to
eventually catch up.” [my yellow highlighting]
NOTE:
The Australian Dept. of Human Services still continues to invite those who use its welfare services to visit its five Facebook pages on which it will:
* post about payments and services
* answer questions
* give useful tips
* share news, and
* give updates on relevant issue
All associated data (including questions and answers) will of course be captured by Facebook, then collated, transferred, stored overseas, monetised and possibly 'weaponised' during the next election campaign cycle which occurs in the area visitors to these pages live.
Monday 16 April 2018
In Febuary-March 2018 there were 63 Notifiable Data Breaches in Australia involving the personal information of up to 341,849 individuals
In the 2016–17 financial year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) reported that it received 114 data breach notifications on a voluntary basis.
On 22
February the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme came into force.
Between 22
February and 31 March 2018 there were 63 mandatory notifiable data breaches reported involving the personal information of up to est. 341,849 individuals, with 55 of these breaches reported in March alone.
Of these breaches:
24 were
the result of criminal or malicious attack;
32 were
the result of human error;
2 were
system fault; and
1 was
classified as “Other”.
The type of personal information involved in the data breaches:
The type of personal information involved in the data breaches:
Three of
these data breaches involved the personal information of between 10,000 and 999,999 people in each instance.
At least
15 of the 63 data breached involved personal information held by “health service providers”. Health service providers are considered to be any organisation that provides a health service and holds health
information.
Every individual whose personal information was breached was supposed to be notified by the entity holding their information, however the OAIC Quarterly Statistics Report: January 2018 - March 2018 did not specifically state that this had occurred.
Every individual whose personal information was breached was supposed to be notified by the entity holding their information, however the OAIC Quarterly Statistics Report: January 2018 - March 2018 did not specifically state that this had occurred.
Labels:
big data,
data retention,
information technology,
privacy,
safety,
statistics
Saturday 14 April 2018
Quotes of the Week
“We have the right
to store a copy of your [personal e-health] record and we are the only ones
in the market to have this level 4 certification.” [Romain
Bonjean, co-founder Tyde, app developer registered portal operator with Australian
Government Digital Health Agency & My Health Record, quoted in the Australian
Financial Review on 6 April 2018]
“Life is short and shorter for smokers. Just legalise vaping.” [Andrew Laming MP, Dissenting Report, submitted to Australian HoR Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, March 2018]
“When we kick
their ass they all like to claim we’re drunk. I’ve been hanging out getting
ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg’s ass. Busy working; preparing.” [St. Louis radio host Jamie Allman threatening anti-gun activist & highschool
student David Hogg, as reported by Snopes,
9 April 2018]
“They promised us
a grilling. We got PR.”
[UK journalist Carole Cadwalladr
tweeting about US
Senate hearing at which Facebook founder & CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared
on 10 March 2018]
“I start to wonder if, in fact, how the developers mine money for
Facebook has become a bit of a mystery to Zuck.” [IT journalist Richard Chirgwin opining on Facebook founder & CEO Mark
Zuckerberg, Twitter,
12 April 2018]
Labels:
data retention,
Facebook,
guns,
health,
Mark Zuckerberg
Wednesday 11 April 2018
Almost right from its very beginning Facebook Inc was not the benign Internet presence it pretended to be
Facebook Inc. - incorporated in July 2004 and headquartered at 1 Hacker Way (so named by Facebook management), Menlo Park, California 94025 - has at least twelve data centres around the world which collect, transmit, collate, store and
monetise data drawn from an est. 2 billion active Facebook accounts.
In May 2017 this social media company was worth est. US$407.3 billion according to Forbes.com.
Now that the social media giant finds itself being officially investigated to varying degrees by the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States on matters of user data collection, data retention, privacy and safety - as well as being the object of a number of lawsuits - here is a timeline indicating how Mark Zuckerberg brought Facebook to this low point......
FACEBOOK INC
2005
Facebook Privacy Policy states that Thefacebook
takes appropriate precautions to protect our users' information. Your account
information is located on a secured server behind a firewall. However
it also states When you visit the Web Site you may provide us with two types of
information: personal information you knowingly choose to disclose that is
collected by us and Web Site use information collected by us on an aggregate
basis as you and others browse our Web Site.
When you register on the Web Site, you provide us with certain personal information, such as your name, your email address, your telephone number, your address, your gender, schools attended and any other personal or preference information that you provide to us.
When you enter our Web Site, we collect the user's browser type and IP address. This information is gathered for all users to the Web Site. In addition, we store certain information from your browser using "cookies." A cookie is a piece of data stored on the user's computer tied to information about the user. We use session ID cookies to confirm that users are logged in. These cookies terminate once the users close the browser. We do not use cookies to collect private information from any user.
Thefacebook also collects information about you from other sources, such as newspapers and instant messaging services. This information is gathered regardless of your use of the Web Site.
When you register on the Web Site, you provide us with certain personal information, such as your name, your email address, your telephone number, your address, your gender, schools attended and any other personal or preference information that you provide to us.
When you enter our Web Site, we collect the user's browser type and IP address. This information is gathered for all users to the Web Site. In addition, we store certain information from your browser using "cookies." A cookie is a piece of data stored on the user's computer tied to information about the user. We use session ID cookies to confirm that users are logged in. These cookies terminate once the users close the browser. We do not use cookies to collect private information from any user.
Thefacebook also collects information about you from other sources, such as newspapers and instant messaging services. This information is gathered regardless of your use of the Web Site.
2006
Facebook’s privacy
policy is now expressing this sentiment; We understand you may not want everyone in
the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give
you control of your information. Our default privacy settings limit the
information displayed in your profile to your school, your specified local
area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about….
However the
company is still collecting as much information about Facebook users that it can, as well as informing account holders that; Facebook may also
collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs,
instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the
operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide you with more
useful information and a more personalized experience. By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to
and processed in the United States.
2007
Facebook Platform
- app developers can now access the “’social graph’ ie., tracked connections
between users and their friends.
Beacon - shares what users are doing on
other websites with their Facebook friends
without specific consent.
2008
Facebook Connect - corrects Beacon’s mistakes by
requiring users to take deliberate action before they share activity from other
websites when logged in using Facebook.
2009
Beacon officially shut down after at least
one lawsuit commenced over privacy issue.
Facebook hosts the Farmville game which was
later revealed as a data miner.
2010
Facebook’s privacy
policy states; When you connect with an application or
website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General
Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender,
user IDs, connections,
and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default
privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to
“everyone.” ... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only
control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are
uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider
removing (or not making) the connection.
On 28 April
2010 Electronic
Frontiers Foundation reported that: Facebook announced a
plan to transform most of the bits in your profile (including your hometown,
education, work, activities, interests, and more) into connections, which
are public information. If you refuse to make these items into a
Connection, Facebook will
remove all unlinked information.
2011
Social reporting tool – allows Facebook users to directly contact other users to request a post or
image takedown if either relates directly to them. Any takedown is voluntary if content doesn't breach Facebook rules.
Facebook Inc initially refuses to take down a defamatory site invading the privacy of Clarence Valley highschool students. It only does so after direct pressure is applied by a community member.
Facebook Inc initially refuses to take down a defamatory site invading the privacy of Clarence Valley highschool students. It only does so after direct pressure is applied by a community member.
2012
In February
the Parliament of Australia invites
the Australian public to connect with it via
Facebook.
Facebook begins roll out Facebook Camera
for iOS to English-speaking countries - a standalone photos app where users can
shoot, filter, and share single or sets of photos and scroll through a feed of
photos uploaded to Facebook by
friends.
2013
Facebook begins collaboration with Dr.
Alexandr Kogan eventually supplying him with data on 57 million Facebook
friendships by 2015. User data supplied to Kogan for his research was later sent to Cambridge Analytica without Facebook users knowledge or consent.
2014
Facebook Groups - app for iOS and Android introduced
and then deleted some months later.
Facebook buys
WhatsAppMessaging.
Facebook conducts a number
of psychological experiments on users without their knowledge or consent. It is reported that 689,000
users had their home pages manipulated.
Facebook applies for patent
on software which can scan users faces for emotional mood assessment via use of
user’s digital device camera
(patent granted 2017).
2015
Security Checkup - new tool to simplifying privacy
controls.
Head of
Research at Facebook Inc, Peter Fleming, and one of the company’s contract researchers are listed as co-authors
of Alexander Kogan’s published
research on the
relationship of social class and international friendships.
University researchers
claim Facebook tracks
the web browsing of everyone who visits a page on its site even if the user
does not have an account.
2016
WhatsAppMessaging begins to share user data with Facebook parent company which can now access
users WhatsApp phone number, contact list, and usage data (e.g. when you last
used WhatsApp, what device you used it on, and what OS you ran it on).
2017
Privacy Basics - new tool to simplify privacy
controls.
Becomes
public knowledge that Facebook
revealed to one Australian advertiser that it had a database of young users – 1.9 million high schoolers, 1.5
million tertiary students and 3 million young workers – and that it could tell advertisers
when young workers were particularly vulnerable.
Facebook reported to be planning $750 million
data center in New Albany, Ohio employing
only 50 permanent staff.
Facebook admits to US Securities and Exchange Commission that 1.5% of its 2.01 billion accounts worldwide are “undesirable” - that is likely to be fake accounts. Yahoo Finance calculates that to be upwards of 30 million accounts.
Facebook admits to US Securities and Exchange Commission that 1.5% of its 2.01 billion accounts worldwide are “undesirable” - that is likely to be fake accounts. Yahoo Finance calculates that to be upwards of 30 million accounts.
In December Germany’s Federal Cartel Office released preliminary
investigation findings and stated: The Bundeskartellamt has informed the company Facebook in writing of its
preliminary legal assessment in the abuse of dominance proceeding which the
authority is conducting against Facebook. Based on the current stage of the
proceedings, the authority assumes that Facebook is dominant on the German
market for social networks. The authority holds the view that Facebook is
abusing this dominant position by making the use of its social network
conditional on its being allowed to limitlessly amass every kind of data
generated by using third-party websites and merge it with the user's Facebook
account. These third-party sites include firstly services owned by Facebook
such as WhatsApp or Instagram, and secondly websites and apps of other operators
with embedded Facebook APIs.
Google search engines now host multiple Facebook apps.
By 2017 numerous government departments and agencies in Australia have Facebook accounts, from which the company can harvest visitor data whether or not the visitor has a Facebook account.
Included on the long list of government departments/agencies is the federal Dept. of Human Services (DHS). DHS states that it posts on its Facebook page about payments and services, answers questions, gives useful tips, shares news, and give updates on relevant issues. This means that anyone who visits or interacts with the five DHS Facebook pages will have their Internet usage data scraped, information contained in any questions asked retained and collated with any other information Facebook holds on that visitor. DHS appears to be aware of privacy vulnerabilities in its use of Facebook as it is at pains to point out that The department is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of Facebook.......
Included on the long list of government departments/agencies is the federal Dept. of Human Services (DHS). DHS states that it posts on its Facebook page about payments and services, answers questions, gives useful tips, shares news, and give updates on relevant issues. This means that anyone who visits or interacts with the five DHS Facebook pages will have their Internet usage data scraped, information contained in any questions asked retained and collated with any other information Facebook holds on that visitor. DHS appears to be aware of privacy vulnerabilities in its use of Facebook as it is at pains to point out that The department is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of Facebook.......
Australian federal and state electoral commissions also have active Facebook pages.
In December 2017 Facebook rolled out Messenger Kids app which is installed via an adult's Facebook account. This app offers video and text chats for children using their own digital devices. Although Messenger Kids displays no ads it does not appear to be exempt from Facebook's user data collection.
Facebook Inc initially refuses to remove a scam account attempting to raise money and only does so after media pressure.
2018
On 16 March Facebook Inc. announces it has suspended the accounts of Aleksandr Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Strategic Communication Laboratries Group on the basis they had misused Facebook user data,
In late March it was revealed that Facebook's Android app is capable of hoovering up extensive call data without users knowledge or consent.
Facebook-created VR app like Spaces obtain information about what users doing there, much in the same way that any third-party app developer would. Facebook also records a “heatmap” of viewer data for 360-degree videos, for instance, flagging which parts of a video people find most interesting.
Facebook admits that it archived unpublished and deleted user videos created using a now redundant video streaming function.
Facebook Inc.
admits that up to 87 million account holders may have had their personal information accessed by the Trump presidential campaign-linked data miner Cambridge
Analytica. Either because Facebook users accessed the thisisyourdigitallife app or because they had friended a person had done so.
Only 53 Australian Facebook users took the thisisyourdigitallife personality quiz but the app hoovered up the data on est 311,127 other users included in friendship lists once it accessed those 53 accounts. Just 10 New Zealanders used the app but data from another est. 67,000 users was collected via their friendship groups.
Only 53 Australian Facebook users took the thisisyourdigitallife personality quiz but the app hoovered up the data on est 311,127 other users included in friendship lists once it accessed those 53 accounts. Just 10 New Zealanders used the app but data from another est. 67,000 users was collected via their friendship groups.
Facebook also admits that its software allowed
reverse searching of its user pages employing only ‘phone numbers and email
addresses and that “malicious actors” may have used this feature to
scrap public profile data from most of its 2 billion users.
The company
admits that its account recovery process can also allow these malicious actors
to access user data.
In April Facebook announces a tightening of its
privacy controls and states it intends to police all third party requests for
access to user data. Given the company stated it had in total 215,000 staff worldwide
as of December 2017 and, not all those staff would be available to personally
monitor third party requests relating to Facebook’s
est. 2 billion active monthly users, one wonders just how reliable this latest ‘promise’
from Facebook Inc. will be.
On 4 April
2018 USA
Today reported that: Members of the House and
Senate committees that will question
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about user privacy protection next week
are also some of the biggest recipients of campaign contributions from company
employees and the Facebook Inc. PAC.
The committee that got
the most Facebook contributions is the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which announced Wednesday morning it would question Zuckerberg on
April 11.
Open
Secrets lists
Facebook Inc PAC contributions to 2016
U.S. federal election campaigns:
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list
recipients)
(44% to Democrats, 55% to Republicans) |
$519,500
|
$619,240
|
In April Facebook admits that it has entered an unspecified number of the 1.3 billion
Messenger accounts and, without users knowledge or consent, selectively removed messages sent to those users by Mark Zuckerberg and other unnamed Facebook Inc executives/employees.
Australian Privacy Commissioner launches investigation into Facebook Inc.
Five U.S. state attorneys-general reported to have begun investigations into how Facebook Inc. collects, shares and does or doesn't protect user information.
According to the Insurance
Journal on 5 April 2018: Users and investors have filed at least 18
lawsuits since last month’s revelations about Cambridge Analytica. Beyond
privacy violations, they are accusing Facebook of user agreement breaches,
negligence, consumer fraud, unfair competition, securities fraud and
racketeering.
On 6 April Facebook Inc annouces that it has suspended the account of Canadian tech company AggregateIQ because of its involvenment in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and three days later suspends CubeYou on similar grounds while it investigates.
On 9 April TNW reports that Facebook's cryptocurrency ad filter failed.
By 10 April it was being reported that a number of Facebook IT engineers were quitting or asking to change departments over ethical concerns.
On 11 April 2018 Facebook Inc. founder, CEO and controlling shareholder, 33 year-old Mark Elliot Zuckerberg appears before the US House of Representatives House Energy and Commerce Committee's Facebook: Transparency and Use of Consumer Data hearing.
On 6 April Facebook Inc annouces that it has suspended the account of Canadian tech company AggregateIQ because of its involvenment in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and three days later suspends CubeYou on similar grounds while it investigates.
On 9 April TNW reports that Facebook's cryptocurrency ad filter failed.
The
Washington Post reported on 9 April:
As for Facebook itself,
former FBI special agent Clinton Watts told me that, in one sense, the
numbers should not be surprising since “everyone has a message to get out, and
Facebook is the best place to do it. Russia, Cambridge Analytica or any
campaign for that matter has to go to social media to be effective.” The
problem arose in Facebook’s mode of operating. “Their motto was move fast and
break things, and they did, they moved fast and in the end broke the trust of
their users with the platform,” Watts said. “They didn’t do solid assessments
of who was accessing data on their platforms, and they didn’t effectively
scrutinize advertisements and accounts surfacing on their platforms.”
By 10 April it was being reported that a number of Facebook IT engineers were quitting or asking to change departments over ethical concerns.
On 11 April 2018 Facebook Inc. founder, CEO and controlling shareholder, 33 year-old Mark Elliot Zuckerberg appears before the US House of Representatives House Energy and Commerce Committee's Facebook: Transparency and Use of Consumer Data hearing.
The day
before Zuckerberg fronted the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation’s Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data hearing.
Despite all of the above, as of 11 April 2018 the Australian Government Dept of Human Services retains its "Humans Services", "Student Update", "Families Update" and "Seniors Update" Facebook pages and, the departmental website still links to "How to 'Like' " instructions and shows visitors how to set up their own Facebook account with a link to its very own 'how to' YouTube video. Cenrelink's General Manager also still has an official Facebook account.
Note:
Given the federal Department of Human Services admitted that it had employed third parties to monitor social media including Facebook for information about welfare recipients that it could match with internal departmental data, one has to wonder what range of methods were used to undertake this surveillance and exactly who the contractors were.
Note:
Given the federal Department of Human Services admitted that it had employed third parties to monitor social media including Facebook for information about welfare recipients that it could match with internal departmental data, one has to wonder what range of methods were used to undertake this surveillance and exactly who the contractors were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)