CAT | Online Privacy
We have seen interesting experiments and studies where researchers have looked at what people are willing to pay to protect their privacy.
This then would be the opposite experiment. A company called Datacoup is offering people $8 per month to give them access to all of their social media accounts, and information on their credit and debit card transactions.
You certainly can’t fault them for being covert about their intentions. They are saying very directly what they want and offering a clear quid pro quo.
I don’t think I will be a customer, but it will be very interesting to see if they can find a meaningful number of people willing to make this deal.
This is refreshing. Some evidence that most people ARE actually willing to pay for privacy. If the market shows that this is a winner, we might start to see more privacy protecting applications and services.
The real question is whether invading your privacy generate more revenue than what we are willing to pay to be protected.
AT&T thinks that Austin, TX residents will sell their on-line privacy for less than $20 per month.
AT&T is launching a service called U-verse with GigaPower, which will provide 300Mbps of bandwidth to the home initially, increasing to 1Gbps in 2014. The cost of the service is $99 per month, but they have a special offer.
If you sign up for the Premier plan you can get the service for $70 per month. Additionally a bunch of setup and install fees are waived and you get free HBO. If you follow the footnote on the offer, you will see that Premier is only available if you agree to participate in the “AT&T Internet Preferences” program.
This invites AT&T to monitor your Internet usage to better profile you and so more effectively target ads at you.
GIGAOM reports that AT&T says “we will not collect information from secure (https) or otherwise encrypted sites, such as online banking or when a credit card is used to buy something online on a secure site. And we won’t sell your personal information to anyone, for any reason.”
I am pleased that they are not doing active man in the middle attacks on customer encryption, but that is a very very low privacy hurdle.
So, is $20 per month enough for you to allow AT&T to monitor, record, and monetize everything you on the Internet? Let me know if the comments.
Of course, if you use Anonymizer Universal for all of your on-line activity, there is nothing for them to see.
Welcome to episode 13 of our podcast for September, 2013.
In this episode I will talk about:
A major security breach at Adobe
How airplane mode can make your iPhone vulnerable to theft
Russian plans to spy on visitors and athletes at the winter Olympics
Whether you should move your cloud storage to the EU to avoid surveillance
Identity thieves buying your personal information from information brokers and credit bureaus
How to stop google using your picture in its ads
Why carelessness lead to the capture of the operator of the Silk Road
And how Browser Fingerprinting allows websites to track you without cookies.
Please let me know what you think, and leave suggestions for future content, in the comments.
An important decision just came down from the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Google can be sued for intercepting personal data from open WiFi networks. The intercepts happened as part of the Street View program. In addition to capturing pictures of their surroundings, the Street View vehicles also collect GPS information (to correctly place the pictures) and the MAC addresses (unique hardware identifiers), SSIDs (user assigned network names), and until 2010 they captured some actual data from those networks. The purpose of the WiFi collection is to provide enhanced location services. GPS drains phone batteries quickly, and the weak signals may be unavailable indoors, or even under and significant cover. Nearly ubiquitous WiFi base stations provide another way of finding your location. The Street View cars capture their GPS coordinates along with all of the WiFi networks they can see. Your phone can then simply look at the WiFi networks around it, and ask the database what location corresponds to what it is seeing. WiFi is often available indoors, has short range, requires much less power, and is generally turned on in any case. Google claims that capturing the actual data was an accident and a mistake.
Unfortunately that data contained usernames, passwords and other sensitive information in many cases. A lawsuit was filed accusing Google of violating the Wiretap Act when it captured the data. There is no suggestion that the data has been leaked, misused, or otherwise caused direct harm to the victims.
The ruling was on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Google’s intercepts were protected under an exemption in the Wiretap Act which states that it is OK to intercept radio communications that are “readily accessible” to the general public. The Act specifically states that encrypted or scrambled communications are NOT readily accessible, but the decision hangs on exactly what IS readily accessible. The court ruled that WiFi did not count as “radio” under the Act because several types of radio communications were enumerated, and this was not one of them. They then considered this case under the umbrella of “electronic communications”, which also has an exemption for readily accessible communications. On that, they decided that open WiFi is not readily accessible.
From a privacy perspective, this is good news. It says that people who intercept your information from your open WiFi can be punished (if you ever find out about it). This would clearly prevent someone setting up a business to automatically capture personal and marketing data from coffee shop WiFi’s around the world. It is less likely to have any impact on criminals. I am concerned that it will also lead to a sense of false confidence, and perhaps cause people to leave their WiFi open, rather than taking even minimal steps to protect themselves.
The hacker / tinkerer / libertarian in me has a real problem with this ruling. It is really trivial to intercept open WiFi. Anyone can join any open WiFi network. Once joined, all the the data on that network is available to every connected device. Easy, free, point and click software allows you to capture all of the data from connected (or even un-connected) open WiFi networks. If you are debugging your home WiFi network, you could easily find yourself capturing packets from other networks by accident. They are in the clear. There is no hacking involved. It is like saying that you can not tune your radio to a specific station, even though it is right there on the dial.
I think peeping in windows is a reasonable analogy. If I am standing on the sidewalk, look at your house, and see something through your windows that you did not want me to see, that is really your problem. If I walk across your lawn and put my face against the glass, then you have a cause to complain.
Open WiFi is like a window without curtains, or a postcard. You are putting the data out there where anyone can trivially see it. Thinking otherwise is willful ignorance. All WiFi base stations have the ability to be secured, and it is generally as simple as picking a password and checking a box. You don’t even need to pick a good password (although you really should). Any scrambling or encryption clearly moves the contents from being readily accessible, to being intentionally protected. If you want to sunbathe nude in your back yard, put up a fence. If you want to have privacy in your data, turn on security on your WiFi router.
I think that radio communications are clearly different than wired. With radio, you are putting your data on my property, or out into public spaces. There is no trespass of any kind involved to obtain it, and we have no relationship under which you would expect me to protect the information that you have inadvertently beamed to me. It would be like saying that I can’t look at your Facebook information that you made public because you accidentally forgot to restrict it.
Similar to provisions of the DMCA, which outlaw much research on copy protection schemes, this is likely to create accidental outlaws of researchers, and the generally technical and curious.