ImaginativePRO Blog

STUDY: AMERICANS HATE THAT MARKETERS COLLECT THEIR ONLINE BEHAVIORAL AND SHOPPING DATA, AND HOW THAT DATA IS COLLECTED

 

“Study Finds Broad Wariness Over Online Tracking” is the headline The New York Times put on its story about the results of a new survey by researchers at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. “Study Finds Broad Ignorance Over Online Tracking” would have worked just as well.

A poll of 1,203 adults demonstrated three things.

1. Americans DON'T like the idea that marketers are collecting data about their online behavior and shopping habits. 
2. Americans DON'T have the foggiest understanding of how their data is being collected and what can be done to limit that collection. 
3. Americans ARE confused about what they actually want.

Anyone trying to gauge Americans’ feelings about tracking quickly runs into the ignorance problem. What can you really learn by asking people how they feel about something they didn’t know anything about until you asked them about it?

Since only 13 percent of survey participants had ever heard of the Do Not Track initiative, the Berkeley researchers were forced to resort to a hypothetical: What do you think choosing an option that calls itself “Do Not Track” ought to entail? Here’s how they answered.

When they can be bothered to think about, then, most people feel like they should have the option to choose not to have any of their online behaviors monitored in any way, even though that’s not remotely what current Do Not Track proposals seek to provide. (Nor, need it be said, is the capacity to opt out of internet advertising altogether.)

But for the most part they can’t be bothered to think about it. Maybe that’s because so many of them are laboring under the false belief that they’re being tracked far less than they are. Asked whether advertisers must first obtain an internet user’s permission before tracking them across multiple sites, a plurality of respondents believed that to be the case.

The researchers asked specifically about medical websites, assuming participants would be more mindful of privacy considerations in such a sensitive context.

So most people think they’re being tracked less than they are, but would like to be tracked even less than they think they’re being. At the same time, they’d like not to be bothered by irrelevant ads. Asked how often they find ads useful, 69% of respondents said either “hardly ever” or “never,” leading the researchers to conclude that support for Do Not Track might be rooted in “an aversion to advertising more generally,” not just privacy concerns.

Of course, it’s behavioral tracking and targeting that allows advertisers to serve users the kinds of ads they’ll find relevant.

To summarize: Consumers would like advertisers to serve them ads that are more relevant to their lives, but without knowing anything about those lives. Alternatively, they’d like to see no ads at all. But don’t take away their free content. They like that.

COMMENTARY:  The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been involved in oversight of the behavioral targeting techniques used by online advertisers since the mid-1990s. These techniques, known initially as online profiling, and now known as behavioral targeting, are used to target online behavioral advertising (OBA) to consumers based on preferences inferred from their online behavior.

During the period from the mid-1990s to the present, the FTC held a series of workshops, published a number of reports and gave numerous recommendations regarding both industry self-regulation and Federal regulation of OBA. In late 2010, the FTC proposed a legislative framework for US consumer data privacy including a proposal for a “Do Not Track” mechanism. In 2011, a number of bills were introduced into the United States Congress that would regulate OBA, but they have been bogged down and are now dead because legislators are in the pockets of special interest groups and corporations who need that data and will go to any means to get it.

As a digital researcher, I am often asked to subscribe in order to use a website or download information from websites by completing a questionnaire. This involves using a legitimate email address, and confirmation of same before I can proceed.  I have often profiled companies on my blog, and to this date have been tracked to other websites where one of their display ads is waiting for me.  This can be very annoying, but I have learned to ignore them.  

Cookies are the culprits to all this underhanded data gathering by marketers.  Cookies are written to a special directory of your browser and are unique to you. If your cookies are turned on in your web browsers internet settings, web publishers immediately know who you are, and all of the data gathering happens seamlessly.

Something similar is happening in the real world. I also participate in a number of loyalty programs, and when I buy things, am able to save money on future purchases by accumulating points, and am often provided offers in the form of coupons to purchase competing products to those I regularly buy.  So there is really no easy way to avoid being tracked in the digital or real worlds.  

If you are a Facebook, Twitter or Google+ user you can bet that they are all gathering information about us and tracking us whereever we are.  With the advent of mobile devices like cellular phones and tablets, they can track us on the go.  The question remains: What are they doing with all that information? How can this affect me in the future? Will advertisers benefit from getting their hands on my private information?  YES, Facebook is already providing advertisers with data about our shopping habits, and using this information to help them target you.   

If I were Facebook and Twitter, or any social network relying on an ad-supported revenue model for the majority of its revenue, it would worry me a lot knowing that 69% of respondents surveyed said either “hardly ever” or “never,” on the question of how often they found ads useful.  This compares very favorably with previous polls conducted by other researchers about user sentiment towards Facebook ads.  

Not mentioned in the above, are recent developments that many mobile apps are tracking our geographic locations through our cell phones.  If you do not wish to be tracked this way, I highly recommend that you turnoff the location settings in your cell phone, or just turnoff the power.  As Facebook dwelves deeper into our "mobile lifestyles," they will be able to accumulate huge amounts of data about its users.  So if you bought something through Facebook through your smartphone, they know it, and that information is passed on to its advertisers, who will try to sell you more of the same things. 

Courtesy of an artice dated October 8, 2012 appearing in Forbes 

GOOGLE TO SELL CONTROVERSIAL AR HEADS-UP-DISPLAY (HUD) GLASSES BY YEAR-END, RAISES HUGE PRIVACY CONCERNS

People who constantly reach into a pocket to check a smartphone for bits of information will soon have another option: a pair of Google-made glasses that will be able to stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.

According to several Google employees familiar with the project who asked not to be named, the glasses will go on sale to the public by the end of the year. These people said they are expected “to cost around the price of current smartphones,” or $250 to $600.

The people familiar with the Google glasses said they would be Android-based, and will include a small screen that will sit a few inches from someone’s eye. They will also have a 3G or 4G data connection and a number of sensors including motion and GPS.

A Google spokesman declined to comment on the project.

Seth Weintraub, a blogger for 9 to 5 Google, who first wrote about the glasses project in December, and then discovered more information about them this month, also said the glasses would be Android-based and cited a source that described their look as that of a pair of Oakley Thumps.

Click Image To Enlarge

They will also have a unique navigation system. Mr. Weintraub wrote this month. 

“The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click.  We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

The glasses will have a low-resolution built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby, according to the Google employees. The glasses are not designed to be worn constantly — although Google expects some of the nerdiest users will wear them a lot — but will be more like smartphones, used when needed.

Internally, the Google X team has been actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses and the company wants to ensure that people know if they are being recorded by someone wearing a pair of glasses with a built-in camera.

The project is currently being built in the Google X offices, a secretive laboratory near Google’s main campus that is charged with working on robots, space elevators and dozens of other futuristic projects.

One of the key people involved with the glasses is Steve Lee, a Google engineer and creator of the Google mapping software, Latitude. As a result of Mr. Lee’s involvement, location information will be paramount in the first version released to the public, several people who have seen the glasses said. The other key leader on the glasses project is Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, who is currently spending most of his time in the Google X labs.

One Google employee said the glasses would tap into a number of Google software products that are currently available and in use today, but will display the information in an augmented reality view, rather than as a Web browser page like those that people see on smartphones.

The glasses will send data to the cloud and then use things like Google Latitude to share location, Google Goggles to search images and figure out what is being looked at, and Google Maps to show other things nearby, the Google employee said.   They said.  

“You will be able to check in to locations with your friends through the glasses.”

Everyone I spoke with who was familiar with the project repeatedly said that Google was not thinking about potential business models with the new glasses. Instead, they said, Google sees the project as an experiment that anyone will be able to join. If consumers take to the glasses when they are released later this year, then Google will explore possible revenue streams.

As I noted in a Disruptions column last year, Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist.

Last week The San Jose Mercury News discovered plans by Google to build a $120 million electronics testing facility that will be involved in testing “precision optical technology.”

COMMENTARY:    In a blog post dated February 8, 2012, I commented on the article by Seth Weintraub of 9to5Google.com, that revealed Google's development of "Terminator" style, Android-based head-up-display (HUD) glasses.   That was just a rumor, but it now appears that Google is rapidly moving towards launching their new HUD glasses by year-end.

I hate to say it, but these augmented reality HUD glasses are going to be very controversial and create many privacy concerns and liability issues.  Information about you is now readily available on the internet, especially from social networks, and Google will be able to tap into that information to display your name and possibly your contact information, and anything else you may have posted online.  

In an article February 22, 2012 by Thomas Claburn appearing in InformationWeek, there were 7 potential problems Google may encounter with their new augmented reality HUD glasses:

"Here are a few potential pitfalls:

"Privacy - The outcry over people beaming images back to Google's data centers will be deafening, far worse than complaints about Google's monitoring of Web browsing habits. Google engineers are said to be actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses. But the company's history of repeated privacy blunders suggests controversy is inevitable."

"Google has the technology to enable facial recognition with its Google Goggles app, but has avoided doing so for fear of privacy problems. And that's the real shame here, because augmented reality glasses should be able to do things like present the name of the person you're looking at. That kind of technology will be available eventually, at least to police departments. But as a society, we're not ready for it."

"Redundancy - Augmented reality is cool. But putting the technology into a pair of glasses isn't strictly necessary. Everything your Google glasses might be able to do, your Android phone will do better, particularly given the assumption that the glasses will be intended for periodic rather than constant use."

"Cost - For several hundred dollars, you'll get what? Services already available on your smartphone. Augmented reality makes a lot of sense if you're, say, a NASA astronaut who needs to see Space Shuttle schematics in your visor while you're on a space walk to make repairs. Augmented reality makes less sense for consumers. A more cost-effective solution might be a smartphone scaffold for mounting your phone on your baseball cap."

"Health - There's already enough FUD about mobile phones and brain cancer. But even the most scientifically-minded are likely to balk if Google's glasses rely on anything more powerful than Bluetooth to transmit and receive data. And that's to say nothing of the potential health effects of visual distraction and impairment. No one wants their last thought to be, 'Hey, Google Maps says I'm walking across Highway 101...'"

"Liability - And if there are health risks, there will be liability problems. People will wear Google's glasses while driving, despite explicit warnings not to do so. They will collide with elderly pedestrians and someone will get hurt. Someone will end up going cross-eyed. There will be lawsuits. And some politician will hold a hearing. Add the cost of an insurance policy to your Google Glasses bill."

"Battery Life - Battery life continues to hinder the utility of smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers. And in these devices, you can generally feel the weight of the battery. Glasses need to be light to be comfortable, so the battery will necessarily be small. As a consequence, the glasses are unlikely to be useful for very long, unless they require a separate tethered battery ... and that would ruin the experience. The ideal augmented reality glasses will be able to run perpetually on sunlight. We're probably several decades away from that kind of photovoltaic and processor efficiency."

"Control - Head-tiling will not be enough if the glasses are to offer services beyond navigation. The glasses will either have to convert hand gestures to commands or accept voice commands. So add a microphone, which adds another layer of privacy problems and engineering requirements."

"The glasses will also have to be extraordinarily responsive--when you turn your head you won't be happy with information related to where you were looking three seconds ago. That will mean either a very fast network connection--something many mobile carriers can't manage consistently--or displaying as little data as possible for the sake of speed and to appease mobile carriers, which already consider you a data hog."

Wow, it looks like Thomas Claburn covered all the possible pitfalls that Google could experience. Notice that privacy was No 1 on his list.  I wonder if Google's X-Labs team asked themselves, "What would Steve do?"   Better yet, did Google confer with their attorney's about liability and privacy issues and did they conduct field studies and get feedback from consumers?

This is a great time to mention that the Obama administration is working hard to legislate an online "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" bill, and if the proposed bill passes in its present form without Congressional infighting, it could change the entire internet landscape with regard to privacy concerns.  Checkout my blog post dated February 23, 2012 about Obama's proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights bill.   

I also envision a lot of ads appearing to the HUD whenever you look at a restaurant, movie theater, product whether a book or consumer electronics device, and a message telling you what it is, where you can get it, the price and if there is a deal on that item.  So unless you don't mind receiving these invasive ads appearing on your HUD, then its going to open up a whole new world for those individuals willing to forkup $250 to $650 and the software to use these new HUD glasses.    

I have always felt that technology would be heading this way, and it looks like it will be happening sooner, rather than later.   You can expect Microsoft, Apple and others to introduce similar devices, but they will probably wait to see just how much traction Google is making with their new HUD augmented reality glasses before launching their own.

Courtesy of an article dated February 21, 2012 appearing in The New York Times Bits

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES NEW ONLINE "CONSUMER PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS," BUT CAN IT GET THROUGH CONGRESS?

The Obama administration just rolled out something it’s calling a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.” It’s a first draft at this point — think of it as a blueprint for legislation down the road, a statement of principles companies can voluntarily sign onto — but given what it’s meant to do, and how it could impact future law, it’s definitely worth canvassing the key points.

CNN has a copy of the full text of the bill, if you want to read the preamble. I’ll summarize: It applies to personal data, which the bill defines as

“any data…that is linkable to a specific individual.”

That’s an over-broad definition, of course — it’s semantically linkable to pretty much every kind of data — but given the sensitivity of the subject matter, better to err on the side of breadth at the outset. And as the White House notes,

“Even without legislation, [it] will convene multistakeholder processes that use these rights as a template for codes of conduct that are enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission.”

Here's a summary of the major provisions of the Obama Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights:

• “Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it.”  This is the bill’s first point and arguably its most important. The White House says companies “should provide consumers appropriate control over the personal data that consumers share with others and over how companies collect, use, or disclose personal data.”  The bill says the choices should be easy to use and access, as should our ability “to withdraw or limit consent.” While that sounds like a no-brainer, think about how byzantine or cryptic today’s company privacy strictures tend to be, whether it’s your bank, your credit card company, or the “this today, that tomorrow” mercurialness of social networks like Facebook. Many companies require you opt-out instead of opt-in, as well — I’d like to see a requirement that all forms of personal data sharing be opt-in and never opt-out, and that we place the onus on companies to sell us on the benefits of opting-in instead of hoping we never bother to check. What’s more, personal data collection practices should be front and center, not buried in the fine print or tacked on like those laughable motormouth disclosures at the end of ebullient drug company TV ads.
• “Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices.” This is the “clear and accessible” clause. The White House says “companies should provide clear descriptions of what personal data they collect, why they need the data, how they will use it, when they will delete the data or de-identify it from consumers, and whether and for what purposes they may share personal data with third parties.” And they need to do it “[at] times and in places that are most useful to enabling consumers to gain a meaningful understanding of privacy risks and the ability to exercise Individual Control.”
• “Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.” Translation: A company like Ticketmaster shouldn’t (without explicit permission, anyway) use those Bruce Springsteen tickets I just bought as license to share my information with a merchandizer like Amazon, such that the latter starts emailing me every time one of Springsteen’s albums is on sale. If companies want to use personal data for inconsistent purposes, the bill, in so many words, say they have a right to ask, but “must provide heightened measures of Transparency and Individual Choice.” And there’s a rudimentary age clause in this one that definitely needs to be fleshed out, but crucially states that “Companies should fulfill the obligations under this principle in ways that are appropriate for the age and sophistication of consumers.”
• “Security: Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.” Simple and straightforward: Companies need to secure your data using “reasonable safeguards.” The question that’s not answered, of course, is what’s “reasonable.” For instance: Were Sony’s safeguards to the PlayStation Network “reasonable” before hacker group Anonymous broke in and absconded with millions of users’ personal information? What about the new ones Sony’s put in place since the breach? And how will this be decided legally speaking, say a data breach occurs and lawsuits ensue?
• “Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate.” This is the “how do we make sure what companies think they know about us is correct?” clause. It states that companies “should provide consumers with reasonable access to personal data that they collect or maintain about them, as well as the appropriate means and opportunity to correct inaccurate data or request its deletion or use limitation,” and that the principle should be construed “in a manner consistent with freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”
• “Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.” Again, simple and obvious: Companies need to be able to justify why they’re collecting your personal data (and securely dispose of what they don’t or no longer use). The White House says that justification should be contingent on the “Respect for Context” clause (see above).
• “Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.”  Last but not least, this is the “we should expect companies to adhere to these principles” clause. It also says companies should “hold employees responsible for adhering to these principles” and take measures to ensure the company as a whole is in compliance.

The takeaway in two words: transparency and consistency. I’m cautiously optimistic at this stage, given the bill’s language and scope. Granted some of the points seem over-broad and could do with clarification, but as a first step, with an eye toward FTC enforcement off the block, this is a significant document, and it’s already earning subscribers: AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have already signed up.

But it won’t be just about getting companies onboard (the bill is voluntary), it’ll be about those companies figuring out how to comply. That’s not as straightforward as it sounds. There’s no standard Internet template for privacy mechanics (nor does the bill argue for one). One of the biggest implicit challenges here will thus be how companies structure their consumer privacy mechanics to meet the bill’s imperatives — call it the “feng shui of consumer privacy transparency.”

COMMENTARY:   Right off the top I don't like the fact that Obama's Online Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is not mandatory across the board, but only VOLUNTARY.   That's a fucking joke. Excuse my French.   Do we honestly believe that companies who make their living off of our data, like credit bureaus, banks, credit card companies, direct marketing companies, employment and recruting firms, market research firms, social networks, and so forth, will actually volunteer to adhere to the provisions of the Online Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights?  Very doubtful.   That's the only reason social networks exist.  Like I have told you before, WE are the product.    

As far as I am concerned, my privacy should never, under any circumstances be compromised. All information about me should be strictly on a "need to know basis."   If you don't need to know, you don't get to know.  My private information should go into an impenetrable blackbox, where only a court subpoena could get access to it.  That's the only exception.  

Unfortunately, the genie got out of the magic bottle years ago, and the data about us is already out there "in the wild."  Information about us is everywhere, so the laws would only apply to new data. It gets rather complicated as you can see.

I knew that since early 2011, members of Congress had proposed a number of different bills on online privacy. Unfortunately not a single one of those bills has been voted on.  Most have been stalled or stuck in respective subcommittees on consumer privacy.  In the meantime, Google, Twitter, Facebook, lower tier social networks,  game sites and mobile app makers continue to invade our privacy with reckless abandon.   It is only because some individuals have filed private or class action lawsuits that Congress has taken notice and began to act.  

To give you an idea just how many bills have been stuck or not acted upon by our elected representatives, you will find a complete list courtesy of PrivacyWonk.net.  Warning, the list is unbelievably long.   Our Senators and Congressmen/women all have different ideas about online privacy.  Apparently tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, anti-marijuana, anti-gay marriage, Obamacare and foreign wars are more important.  Screw our privacy.  

Courtesy of an article dated February 23, 2011 appearing in Time's Techland and an article dated August 7, 2011 (with updates through February 7, 2012 appearing in PrivacyWonk.net

TWITTER COMMITS PRIVACY VIOLATION: USERS USING ITS IPHONE APP HAD THEIR ADDRESS BOOK INFO DOWNLOADED WITHOUT PERMISSION

Twitter Inc. has acknowledged that after mobile users tap the "Find friends" feature on its smartphone app, the company downloads users' entire address book, including email addresses and phone numbers, and keeps the data on its servers for 18 months. The company also said it plans to update its apps to clarify that user contacts are being transmitted and stored.

The company's current privacy policy does not explicitly disclose that Twitter downloads and stores user address books.

It does say that

"Twitter users may customize your account with information such as a cellphone number for the delivery of SMS messages or your address book so that we can help you find Twitter users you know." 

As with many online social services, Twitter allows users to look for friends that are also registered users.  In the case of Twitter's iPhone app, users see a screen noting that the service will "Scan your Contacts for people you already know on Twitter."  The short description of the feature does not mention that it also downloads every entry in the address book and stores it.

Twitter's current privacy policy notes that some categories of "Log Data" are stored for up to 18 months.

The policy says.

"Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type, the referring domain, pages visited, your mobile carrier, device and application IDs, and search terms. Other actions, such as interactions with our website, applications and advertisements, may also be included in Log Data."

In response to questions about the process, Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner said the company is planning an update to the language they use in the mobile app.

Penner wrote in an email. 

"We want to be clear and transparent in our communications with users.  Along those lines, in our next app updates, which are coming soon, we are updating the language associated with Find Friends -- to be more explicit. In place of 'Scan your contacts,' we will use 'Upload your contacts.' and 'Import your contacts' (in Twitter for iPhone and Twitter for Android, respectively)."\

Penner also noted that Twitter users can have the service remove their contact databases using the "remove" link on this Twitter webpage (see below).

Click Image To Enlarge

The disclosure from Twitter comes after another online social service, Path, came under fire last week for automatically downloading iPhone users' address books without permission. The chief executive of Path, Dave Morin, apologized for the automatic download and said Path would correct it, but also mentioned that such processes were "industry best practice."

Updated February 15th, 12:51 p.m. Twitter has clarified that it does not store names from address books, only email addresses and phone numbers.  The company initially told the Times that names were among the types of data it gathered from users'mobile contacts lists.

When users activate the service's "Find friends" feature, "the email addresses and phone numbers in your address book will be shared with Twitter," wrote Carolyn Penner, Twitter's spokesperson.  "Later, if one of your contacts signs up for Twitter with one of those email addresses and chooses to be discoverable by the address, we can connect you two."

COMMENTARY:   I used Twitter's app for several years, so this privacy violation by Twitter is like a kick to my groin.   In a blog post dated March 31, 2011,  I reported on Twitter and Google both placed on 20-year probation with privacy audits by the FTC for privacy violations.  In a blog post dated November 30, 2011, I reported on Facebook being put on a 20-year probation with annual privacy audits.   You would think that during all this time, Twitter would've come clean, and admitted that it was downloading our entire address book.  Now Twitter clarified that it "does not store names from address books, only email addresses and phone numbers."  Thanks for making me feel a bit better about this privacy violation.  cough, cough.

What is really eye-opening is Path's CEO Dave Morin mentioning that such processes (downloading address book data) were "industry best practice."  I think it is time that Twitter and Path users report these gross privacy violations to the Federal Trade Commission for further investigation.  Makes you wonder, what other tidbits of information about their users social networks are helping themselves to, without our permission.   

Protecting your online privacy is of the utmost importance. In today’s connected world, it is far too easy to lose your privacy to the hands of many unscrupulous individuals. What can you do if you have discovered that your privacy has been violated by your favorite social network?

Your privacy rights are addressed with two acts: the 1974 Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. There are also many agencies that handle the enforcement of Internet privacy laws, including the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

Protect yourself from privacy violations by thoroughly reading any and all privacy policies for any website entities you want to do business with. Do not, in any case provide private information, if you think that website may use your information fraudulently. Make sure you feel secure prior to any financial transactions.

You have 180 days to report these violations under a general statute of limitations. Your individual state may also have other rules and regulations for reporting these violations .

Use the FTC’s online form to file a complaint located HERE. You can report cases of unwanted spyware installations, online shopping fraud and internet auction complaints using this process.

You can try to contact the disputed company directly to try resolving the issue prior to filing a formal complaint. If this fails, file the FTC report and be sure to attach any and all documentation, including prior attempts at resolution.

Courtesy of an article dated February 14, 2012 appearing in the Los Angeles Times

APPLE FINALLY DISCLOSES THE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE PRODUCTION PLANTS OF ITS MAGICAL DEVICES AND ITS ABOUT TIME

Apple Inc. disclosed a comprehensive list of its major suppliers for the first time, along with a detailed report on factory inspections, moving to combat an array of criticism about working conditions in its supply chain and the company's transparency about it.

The report said Apple found continued problems in areas such as working hours, overtime pay and handling of hazardous waste. For example, the report said Apple's suppliers were in compliance with the company's code of a maximum of a 60-hour work week only 38% of the time. The company said factories fared better in other areas like fair treatment.

In one of his first interviews as Apple Chief Executive, Tim Cook said the Cupertino, Calif., company has long aimed to be more transparent and believes the steps it is taking—including nearly doubling the number of supplier audits it does—are "raising the bar" for the industry.

Tim Cook, Apple CEO, and previously Apple's chief operating officer who oversaw its supply chain said. 

"I have spent a lot of time in factories over my lifetime and we are clearly leading in this area.  It is like innovating in products. You can focus on things that are barriers or you can focus on scaling the wall or redefining the problem."

Apple's list of 156 companies came along with a major report—one of the company's largest ever—divulging the results of its recent factory inspections. While the company has long revealed some of its top suppliers, the new list covers those that represent 97% of its materials and manufacturing spending.

Apple Production Suppliers List 2011

Click Image To Enlarge

The list includes a range of global technology companies, such as Sony Corp. to Intel Corp., along with niche regional businesses such as Tianjin Lishen Battery Joint-Stock Co. Ltd.

 

Apple Production Supplier Report - 2012 Progress Report

View more documents from turk5555.

 

The report makes several references to one of Apple's biggest manufacturing partners, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. The company, also known as Foxconn, combated a spate of employee suicides at a facility in Shenzen, China, in 2010 and an explosion that killed four workers at plant in Chengdu, China, last year. Apple said it has put in place new requirements for firms dealing with combustible dust.

 The report found 108 facilities didn't pay proper overtime wages and 93 facilities had records that indicated more than 50% of their workers exceeded the 60-hour work week. The audits also found 5 facilities had incidents of underage labor.

Tim Cook said.  

"Working hours is a complex issue.  I am confident the company can improve in the area by monitoring these plants at a very, very micro level.  I know this is a journey."

The report also found 24 facilities conducted pregnancy tests and 56 didn't have procedures to prevent discrimination against pregnant workers. Apple said that at its direction, the suppliers have stopped discriminatory screenings for medical conditions or pregnancy.

Mr. Cook said Apple has been sharing more of its findings about working conditions in its factories over time, but this year's update represents its most detailed. It comes as the drumbeat of criticism against practices across the company's ballooning supplier footprint has grown from prominent Chinese environmental activists and others. Many of those have taken aim at the company's prior unwillingness to disclose all the suppliers it works with.

The report said Apple has taken new steps to better monitor and improve conditions at factories, including increasing audits in Malaysia and Singapore and expanding its worker education program.

Apple said it found 112 facilities that weren't properly storing, moving or handling hazardous chemicals and 69 weren't recycling or disposing of hazardous waste as required by law, including one that had a pipe dumping waste into a nearby farm.

The Fair Labor Association, a prominent labor standards non-profit, also said that Apple would join the group, opening it up to independent monitoring.  In a statement, Apple's senior vice president of operations Jeff Williams said it was "extremely proud to be the first technology company admitted into the group."

COMMENTARY:   In a blog post dated October 12, 2011, I introduced you to Foxconn International, one of Apple's major Chinese production suppliers for the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Foxconn has been in the news quite a bit over reports of how it treats its production workers, appalling working conditions, 15-20 hour work days, and 11 employees committing suicide in 2010.  

In a blog post dated October 15, 2011, I reported that Foxconn International planned on replacing workers with one million robots over the next three years.  Rising labor rates in China are the culprit, and its better to replace human beings with robots because they don't complaint, and you can work them 24/7, 365 days a year if you need to.  Labor problems solved.

In a blog post dated November 7, 2011, I reported on the findings of China's Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) , the equivalent of America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about  dozens of heavy metal poisonings that have occurred in China since 2009.  According to the IPE, after several months investigating these environmental poisonings throughout China, Apple's suppliers came up again and again.  The head of IPE saod.  

"We found violations of wastewater standards and water pollution, air pollution, air emissions problems, and hazardous waste disposal problems.  The volume of hazardous waste generated by the supply chain is amazing.  In one case, we found that a single factory generated 110,000 tons of hazardous waste a year."

When the IPE confronted Apple directly about these violations of hazardous wastes, it refused to confirm that the guilty production suppliers even produced Apple products.  Apple has always been very secretive about its product producers, and its policy was to refuse to disclose its suppliers.  The IPE largely knew who Apple's suppliers were (from talking to locals, following delivery trucks with outgoing shipments, and monitoring media reports).  

I was so pissed off at the hazardous wastes being spewed by Apple's Chinese production suppliers into the environment, rivers and canals, that I called Apple's headquarters and was given a "no comment."  That's what prompted me to write the above blog post, and I am glad that I did.

It is apparent that IPE's aggressive investigation of Apple's Chinese production suppliers has forced Apple's hand, and the above Apple Production Supplier List for 2011 and Apple Production Supplier Report - Progress Report For 2012 are the result.

I have always been impressed with the simple, minimalist design and elegance of Apple's products. That has been its trademark and secret to success.  However, you would think that a company that prides itself on product quality would take adequate measures to insure that its production suppliers are complying with local labor laws, fair labor standards and disposing of hazardous wastes properly and taking proper measure to protect the environment against pollution.  Apple has been growing so rapidly, that it apparently ignored all these bad signals until now and the magnitude of violations listed in its Apple Production Supplier Report is clear indication of this.

Courtesy of an article dated January 13, 2012 appearing in The Wall Street Journal

SECURITY RESEARCHER TREVOR ECKHART ACCUSES CARRIER IQ OF USING A HIDDEN APP INSTALLED ON SMARTPHONES THAT LOGS YOUR CALLS

A security researcher has posted a video detailing hidden software installed on smart phones that logs numerous details about users' activities.

In a 17-minute video posted Monday on YouTube, Trevor Eckhart shows how the software – known as Carrier IQ – logs every text message, Google search and phone number typed on a wide variety of smart phones - including:

• HTC 
• Blackberry
• Nokia* 
• and others - and reports them to the mobile phone carrier.

The application, which is labeled on Eckhart’s HTC smartphone as "HTC IQ Agent," also logs the URL of websites searched on the phone, even if the user intends to encrypt that data using a URL that begins with "HTTPS," Eckhart said.

The software always runs when Android operating system is running and users are unable to stop it, Eckhart said in the video.

Eckhart wrote at the end of the video.

"Why is this not opt-in and why is it so hard to fully remove?" 

In a post about Carrier IQ on his website, Eckhart called the software a "rootkit," a security term for software that runs in the background without a user's knowledge and is commonly used in malicious software.

Eckhart's video is the latest in a series of attacks between him and the company. Earlier this month, Carrier IQ sent a cease and desist letter to Eckhart claiming he violated copyright law by publishing Carrier IQ training manuals online. But after the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, came to Eckhart’s defense, the company backed off its legal threats.

 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said: 

"The software that Eckhart has publicized raises substantial privacy concerns about software that many consumers don’t know about."

Carrier IQ could not immediately be reached for comment. But the company told Wired.com: 

“Our software is used for gathering information off the handset to understand the mobile-user experience, where phone calls are dropped, where signal quality is poor, why applications crash and battery life.”

On its website, Carrier IQ, founded in 2005, describes itself as "the world's leading provider of Mobile Service Intelligence solutions."

UPDATE: Grant Paul, a well-known iPhone hacker who goes by the screenname "chpwn",wrote on his blog that Apple has included Carrier IQ on the iPhone, but the software's default is disabled.

COMMENTARY:  It seems that for the last month or so, I've been writing a lot about social network privacy violations and the investigations by the FTC of Google, Twitter and most recently Facebook.  All three are now on 20-year probations and must undergo independent security audits. But, it makes you wonder  

It now appears that Carrier IQ with its hidden software app IQ Agemt secretly installed on several major brands of smartphones, has been gathering our entire telephone history and providing that information to the wireless carriers and cellular phone manufacturers.

When I visited the Carrier IQ website, their homepage includes the following Media Alert:

Click Image To Enlarge

Right on its homepage, Carrier IQ describes itself as a

"leading provider of Mobile Service Intelligence Solutions to the wireless industry. "

 They also say.

"As the the only embedded analytics company to support millions of devices simultaneously, we give Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers unprecidented insight into their customers' mobile experience. "     

The key word to note in the above claim is "embedded analytics," which implies that their software is installed on the handset devices itself.  

Carrier IQ's homepage even keeps a real-time talley of the number of handset devices that already have their software installed.   It's a big number:  141.3 million handsets.  

Carrier IQ offers its customers the four different products:

• IQ  Insight Device Analyzer - IQ Insight Device Analyzer accelerates the mobile service and mobile device pre-launch activities at wireless carriers and mobile device vendors. Using data from the device itself, IQ Insight Device Analyzer supports testing, certification and trial phases of development and the post-launch phase of troubleshooting. It enables you to rapidly resolve difficult-to-reproduce issues and to supplement your existing testing to reliably meet target launch dates. Following the launch of your new service or device, IQ Insight continues to provide actionable data about users and devices, enabling you to reduce service costs and subscriber churn.
• IQ Insight Datacard Analyzer - IQ Insight Datacard Analyzer gives you the information you need to troubleshoot, analyze, and optimize your mobile datacard population. Designed for Mobile Carriers, IQ Insight provides unrivalled clarity into end-to-end mobile broadband service delivery, including availability, throughput, latency and reliability across the entire deployed population. Whether your requirement is network analysis and optimization, throughput and SLA monitoring, device performance, troubleshooting or service analysis, the combination of accurate data and intuitive graphical tools provide the information you need to compete effectively in the mobile broadband space.
• IQ Insight Experience Manager - IQ Insight Experience Manager provides a level of visibility into true customer experience that was, previously unavailable in the mobile industry. Based on Carrier IQ's leading Mobile Service Intelligence technology, IQ Insight Experience Manager uses data directly from the mobile phone itself to give a precise view of how users interact with both their phones and the services delivered through them, even if the phone is not communicating with the network.
• IQ Insight Service Analyzer - IQ Insight Service Analyzer delivers the next level of visibility into mobile service quality and performance. Based on Carrier IQ's leading Mobile Service Intelligence Platform, IQ Insight Service Analyzer uses data directly from the mobile phone to give a precise view of service performance as experienced by the subscriber of clear insight into the detailed interactions between the service and device.

The above products fall under Mobile Service Intelligence, the process of analyzing data from phones to give you a uniquely powerful insight into mobile service quality and user behavior. Carrier IQ's Mobile Service Intelligence Platform (MSIP) is the smart database at the heart of our solution. It receives raw data (known as Metrics) from phones and converts them into reliable, repeatable Measures which feed into analytic applications. The MSIP delivers true enterprise grade performance, with its proven ability to process data submitted by millions of phones with outstanding integrity and security.

The above leaves no doubt that the four products "uses data directly from the mobile phone," which no doubt refers to Carrier IQ's IQ Agent which is installed or embedded in the actual phone.

The following section in Carrier IQ's Media Alert specifically denies that IQ Agent is "recording keystrokes" or "providing tracking tools" to its customers.

"While we look at many aspects of a device’s performance, we are counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or providing tracking tools. The metrics and tools we derive are not designed to deliver such information, nor do we have any intention of developing such tools."

The following section in Carrier IQ's Media Alert specifically states that "Carrier IQ does not sell personal subscriber information to 3rd parties":  

"The information gathered by Carrier IQ is done so for the exclusive use of that customer, and Carrier IQ does not sell personal subscriber information to 3rd parties. The information derived from devices is encrypted and secured within our customer’s network or in our audited and customer-approved facilities."

Carrier IQ's Media Alert also states:

"Each customer is different and our technology is customized to their exacting needs and legal requirements."

In otherwords, IQ Agent is customized for each customer and the Mobile Service Intelligence it provides varies between customers.

As you could clearly see from Eckhart's video, IQ Agent definitely tracks keystrokes, but Carrier IQ claims:  

"The information derived from devices is encrypted and secured within our customer's network or in our audited and customer-approved facilities."

If we take Carrier IQ on its word that a customers personal data is encrypted and cannot be compromised, then I assume that the Mobile Service Intelligence data that Carrier IQ provides its clients is strictly raw transactional data, without providing the identity or personal information of the specific mobile phone owner.

As a BlackBerry phone owner, which is one of the brands using Carrier IQ's Mobile Service Intelligence services, I can live with that, but I do believe that any company, whether a cellular service provider or handset manufacturer, that is harvesting information about our phone behaviors must disclose this right upfront.

However, I am still very suspicious about Carrier IQ, because each wireless service provider and handset manufacturer can customize IQ Agent for their specific needs and information requirements.   

Here are the reasons for my suspicions,  on October 11, 2011, I received the following email from Verizon Wireless, my wireless service provider:

Click Image To Enlarge

Verizon Wirless wanted my permission to use certain information that they are apparently getting from my phone.  Here's what the above email said:

"Verizon Wireless will begin using the information described below for (1) certain business and marketing reports and (2) making mobile ads you see more relevant. If you do not want us to use this information for these purposes, you can let us know by using one of the options described in the "Your Choices" section of this notice. This supplements our Privacy Policy."

There's the list of information that they wanted to use:

Verizon Wireless will use the following categories of information:

Mobile Usage Information:  Addresses of websites you visit when using our wireless service.  These data string (or URLs) may include search terms you have used. Location of your device ("Location Information"). App and device feature usage.

Consumer Information: Information about your use of Verizon products and services (such as data and calling features, device type, and amount of use). Demographic and interest categories provided to use by other companies, such as gender, age range, sports fan, frequent diner, or pet owner ("Demographics") Verizon is apparently obtaining this information from somebody, and I am guessing that it might be Carrier IQ or another Mobile Service Intelligence company. It does strike me as awful suspicious that Carrier IQ claims they don't provide my internet usage data like URLs and apps that I use, but Verizon Wireless is getting that information from somewhere. Naturally, I responded with a big NO, but opting out.

If any of you are using a BlackBerry phone and Verizon Wireless is your service provider, let me know if you received the above email and how you responded. The moral of this story is quite simple:  Big Brother is watching.  If the cellular service providers have that information, are they using it only internally, or sharing that data with third parties.  The whole thing gives me the willies.

Courtesy of an article dated November 30, 2011 appearing in The Huffington Post

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE CORP GETS FTC OK TO SUPPLY EMPLOYERS INFO ABOUT YOUR ONLINE BEHAVIORS, FACEBOOK IS A SPY FOR THE COPS

Remember what others have told you before:

• Facebook treats its users like products. 
• That companies like Social Intelligence Corporation use special software to scour the internet for information about you, including rummaging through your social networks for negative or derogatory posts or pictures on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ then analyze that information and prepare a social media consumer report for prospective employers so they can decide if you present a risk as an employee.  
• That people are quitting Facebook en masse. 

Now, there's yet another reason you might want to make the switch to Google+. Here's why: Facebook has gotten into the habit of allowing police to scour users' profiles without their consent.

According to a new report from Reuters and Westlaw, federal judges have granted at least 24 search warrants since 2008 allowing law enforcement officials to snoop around people's Facebook accounts. Some of the warrants sought things as innocuous as status updates, but others gave access to friend requests, photos, event calendars and personal messages. And because of Facebook's inherent interconnectedness, it's presumed that police got to see not only their targets' information, but that of their friend groups, too. How many times did Facebook users challenge these searches as illegal under the Fourth Amendment? Zero, but experts theorize that's because Facebook hasn't been letting users know when cops are tossing their online lives.

Neither Facebook nor law enforcement is obligated to tell people when their accounts have been legally compromised. But other tech companies, like Twitter and Google, have official policies that say they will alert users before allowing police to comb their profiles. Twitter even went to court earlier this year to fight a federal ruling that would have barred them from notifying users of subpoenas. Facebook, on the other hand, has neglected to inform at least one user that he was under surveillance recently. Nathan Kuemmerle, a psychiatrist, was being accused of dealing prescription drugs when a police officer submitted comments he'd made on "Mafia Wars" as a reason he should be denied bail. Kuemmerle's lawyer told Reuters he'd never been informed of the Facebook warrant, and that the cop actually lied at the bail hearing, saying he got the "Mafia Wars" information from "an undercover source."

Even one case like this would be appalling, but records show dozens, and things are getting worse as more people join Facebook. There have already been 11 search warrants issued for Facebook profiles this year, which is almost double the amount issued in all of 2010.

With more and more people spending more and more time online, it makes sense for police to start searching social-networking sites for clues. But you'd think—or at least hope—that people who profit off your trust wouldn't consider you so expendable. It's moments like this when a notorious IM exchange between Mark Zuckerberg and a friend from immediately after Facebook had been founded seems quite prescient:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard  

Zuck: Just ask.  

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS  

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?  

Zuck: People just submitted it.  

Zuck: I don't know why.  

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

COMMENTARY:    I profiled Social Intelligence Corporation in a blog post dated October 3, 2010 and at that time called it a "creepy startup" and "truly scary" company.  Apparently consumers hurt by this companies activities filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claiming they were in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1996, 2004 with amendments there to.  The FCRA is a fairly complex 86 page document (see below) that provides consumers with certain rights:

• Disclose your credit file to you upon request - Consumer reporting agencies must provide you the information in your file if you request it and provide the agency with proper identification. See "How do I get a free report? " for more information.
• Limit access to your information - A consumer reporting agency may not provide your credit report to any party that lacks a permissible purpose, such as the evaluation of an application for a loan, credit, service, or employment. Permissible purposes also include several business and legal uses. See "Who can access my Equifax credit file?" for more information.
• Get your consent before providing your information to an employer - A consumer reporting agency may not provide your credit information to an employer or potential employer unless you first give that employer written permission to request your credit report.
• Investigate disputed information - If you tell a consumer reporting agency that your file contains inaccurate information, the agency must promptly investigate the matter with the source that provided the information. If the investigation fails to resolve the dispute, you may add a statement to your credit file explaining the matter. For more information, see Correcting Errors in Your Report.
• Correct or delete inaccurate information - A consumer reporting agency must correct or, as the case may be, delete from your credit file the information that is found to be inaccurate or can no longer be verified. The consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate data from your file unless it is outdated.
• Delete outdated information - In general, negative information that is more than 7 years old (10 years for bankruptcies) must be removed from your file
• Remove your name from marketing lists upon request - Consumer reporting agencies can provide lists of consumer names and addresses whose credit information matches the requirements of creditors and insurers for making firm offers of credit or insurance to the consumers on the list.  However, you can request that the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies not share your information with creditors and insurers for these purposes by calling 1-888-5-OPT OUT.
• Disclose your credit score to you upon request - You have the right to request a credit score about you.  For Equifax, the cost of your credit score disclosure is $7.95.  In some mortgage transactions, you will get credit score information without charge by contacting the person making or arranging your loan for further information. 

Here's a copy of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1996, amended on July 30, 2004: 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act - FTC, July 30, 2004

View more documents from turk5555.

Pay particular attention to Section 604 - Permissable Purposes of Consumer Reports. That's the section upon which the FTC ruled in relation to numerous complaints filed against Social Intelligence Corporation, no doubt.

I can understand why law enforcement officials would obtain a search warrant to review your posts on Facebook, Twitter, foursquare, forums or wherever you might post things online to find incriminating evidence.  The information would be helpful in conducting a criminal investigation, but what happens if that individual is just a so-called "person of interest", and later it turns up that that individual was not guilty of any crime?  The system is so unforgiving.  

I knew that employers were combing through the internet to find out what juicy things prospective job applicants are posting online.  However, just what gives employers the right to become judge and jury, and write-off a job applicant because they just happened to post something derogatory, an expletive, a perceived threat or you said something downright nasty about somebody.  I have done all of this myself, and a whole lot worse.  

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE CORP GETS FTC OK TO OPERATE

I had written about Social Intelligence last year, and dislike them even more now because on May 9, 2011 (see below), the Federal Trade Commission ruled on their behalf claiming that they were not in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act.  This effectively gave Social Intellignece Corporation the legality to provide social media consumer reports to employers conducting background checks on prospective employees.     

Social Intelligence Corporation - FTC Letter of May 9, 2011

View more documents from turk5555.

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE CORP'S SOCIAL MEDIA CONSUMER REPORTS

The following is supposedly an actual example of one of Social Intelligence's Social Media Consumer Reports.  That's the first time I had ever heard of the term "Social Media Consumer Report".  I knew there is such a thing as a Consumer Credit Report, but a Social Media Consumer Report?  In the below example the individual being considered for a position was flagged as "Negative" because he posted a picture of a semi-automative rifle.  Maybe he is a gun collector, and just loves posing with his guns.  Some people love posing with their pitbulls or Rotweilers.  This poor sap was turned down for a job because he was "potentially violent."   

SOCIAL NETWORKS BIGGEST ONLINE PRIVACY VIOLATORS AND FACEBOOK IS IN CAHOOTS WITH THE FEDS

I have been one of the biggest critics of online privacy violations, and Facebook, Google and Twitter and numerous app developer's have been number one on my list.  Google and Twitter were investigated by the FTC for privacy violations and in May 2011 both were put on 20-year probation as part of a final settlement.  Yet, Facebook seems to be impervious to allegations of privacy violations.   Why do you suppose that could be?  The following pic shows Mark Zuckerberg chumming up with Obie.

    

Facebook's policy of protecting our privacy stands in stark contrast to several of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's more idealistic statements. Consider this one from a 2010 60 Minutes interview:

"When you give everyone a voice and give people power, the system usually ends up in a really good place. So, what we view our role as, is giving people that power."

Facebook's Zuckerberg is so determined to give 1.6 billion Chinese citizens access to Facebook, that he went out and said this, "allowing too much, maybe, free speech", an aim to make Facebook more attractive to the brutally authoritarian Chinese government.

Facebook has also made it a goal to deceive users into sharing more information than they think they're sharing. This is the real  reason Facebook is worth more than $50 billion. It's so damn valuable because it harvests user information in order to court advertisers and developers, who exist only to sell you stuff. Probably the best explanation of Facebook, and the best explanation for why Zuckerberg is such a rich man, came from a Metafilter thread last year:

"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."

INVESTIGATING SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE CORP'S ACTIVITIES

I was naturally curious about Social Intelligence so today, I left them the following message which is self-explanatory:

"I am investigating your company about reports that you work with social networks like Facebook (maybe Twitter, foursquare, etc.) and provide private information about the users of those social networks to third parties such as employers and other organizations (law enforcement, perhaps).  i wish to know the third parties you provide information to, what type of information you furnish to those third-parties who hire you for your professional services, how long you have been doing it, where the information is stored, and how I can take myself off your list.  Furthermore, I wish to notify you that you do not have my permission to gather, store or redistribute information about me in any form to any thrid party written or electronic.  You can call me, but I would prefer you put everything in writing via email so that I have it.  I will be following up on this request by Tuesday, 8/2.  Sincerely, Mr. Tommy Toy"

This is what Social Intelligence's homepage says the company does: 

"Social Intelligence Corp solely generates reports based on employer pre-defined criteria, both positive and negative. Negative examples include racist remarks or activities, sexually explicit photos or videos, and illegal activity such as drug use. Positive examples include charitable or volunteer efforts, participation in industry blogs, and external recognition. 

Federal and state protected class information is redacted from the reports we provide. Employers are only exposed to information that is job relevant and may legally be considered in the hiring process. 

Additionally, per FCRA requirements, a new report is run for every job applicant each time they are background checked. While reports must be stored for FCRA compliance, the data within past reports is never re-used." 

Social Intelligence's FAQs answered most of my questions:

1. Where do you find this information? All of the data we access is publicly available online and has been posted by the individual we are researching.
2. What does a report look like and contain?  A consumer report contains the consumer’s full name, email address, and permanent address, as well as employer information and a time-stamp history, screen shots of offensive material, and comments provided by the Social Intelligence team concerning findings.
3. Is Social Intelligence a Consumer Reporting Agency?  Yes, Social Intelligence is a Consumer Reporting Agency as we maintain ‘reasonable procedures’ designed to ensure that the consumer report is only used for permissible purposes and well as having a complete dispute resolution process.
4. What does a report look like and contain?  A consumer report contains the consumer’s full name, email address, and permanent address, as well as employer information and a time-stamp history, screen shots of offensive material, and comments provided by the Social Intelligence team concerning findings.
5. What if I have a dispute?  In the event an employer chooses to not hire an applicant based on a report Social Intelligence has produced, the applicant is sent a ‘pre-adverse action notice’ with a consumer report. The applicant is given detailed instructions on the dispute resolution process. After the report is provided, the consumer has five days to dispute any findings. 
6. How does this benefit my company?
   1. Social Intelligence protects job applicants from discrimination and not being evaluated on what is legally allowable
   2. Social Intelligence protects employers from allegations of discrimination
   3. Social Intelligence protects employers from negligent hiring
   4. Social Intelligence protects employers from being at a hiring disadvantage
   5. Fair and consistent hiring practices = Better hires!
7. Are you reviewing private information?  Social Intelligence does NOT review private profiles and information. We only review publicly available information.
8. Does Social Intelligence plug into our human resources management system (HRMS)?  Yes, we can integrate with most major human resource managements systems.
9. Does Social Intelligence store information about job applicants that can potentially be used against them on future job hunts?  No. As per our policies and obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we only store information on job applicants that have met employer defined criteria that is legally allowable in the hiring process. Examples of this include racist remarks, sexually explicit photos or videos, or illegal activity such as drug use. This is in order to maintain a verifiable chain-of-custody in case the information is ever needed for legal reasons.

THE PROBLEM WITH TERMS OF SERVICE

How many times have you clicked the YES button or checked off the box agreeing to the Terms of Use of Facebook, Google or even Twitter?  How many times have you actually taken the time to read it?  Here are the links for the Terms of Use for Facebook, Twitter and Google.     

• FACEBOOK TERMS OF USE (Pay particular attention to Part 2 - Sharing Your Content and Information, sections #1 and #4)
• GOOGLE TERMS OF USE (Pay particular attention to Part 9 and 11)
• TWITTER TERMS OF USE (Pay particular attention to the section titled Your Rights)

If you carefully review the Terms of Service of the above social networks you will note that this give them the exclusive right to the use your content (wall posts, tweets, images, videos, etc) for any purpose.  If you put it on Facebook, Twitter or Google+ it all belongs to them now, and they can redistribute that content to anybody, sell that information to companies like Social Intelligence or supply that information to law enforcement organizations without you knowing about it.    

HOW TO DELETE YOUR FACEBOOK, TWITTER OR GOOGLE+ ACCOUNT

Having warned everybody about the dangers of posting things on social networks, and if some of you are really upset or angered by what I have just told you, you can always delete your social network accounts.  Something I am thinking of doing for my Facebook account.  If you are so inclined, below are the links to help you DELETE your social network accounts at Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

• DELETE FACEBOOK ACCOUNT (Zuck doesn't make it easy to delete your account.  There a DEACTIVATE feature in your ACCOUNT SETTINGS, but that does NOT delete your account.  Zuck "buried" the DELETE feature deep in side of Facebook Help)
• DELETE TWITTER ACCOUNT  (Twitter makes deleting your account easier, by providing a DEACTIVATE MY ACCOUNT feature bottom left side.  
• DELETE GOOGLE+ ACCOUNT (Google allows you to delete not only your Google+ account, but ALL your Google accounts like Gmail, Doc, Latitude, etc.)

The nice guys at Gizmodo put together the Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook.  I recommend everybody read it.

BTW, I no longer accept invitations to follow anyone except on Twitter  or Google+

It's a Catch-22. All of these damn social networks are the same.  They are all in cahoots with the Feds, law enforcement and creepy outfits like Social Intelligence Corporation.  I am really fed up with the whole thing, and something needs to be done.  

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE CORP VIOLATES OUR PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

I encourage everyone to write to their US Congressman and Senator.  Let them know that social media consumer reports have gone too far.  Employers should not be allowed to use either our consumer credit reports or social media consumer reports when making a hiring decisions.  We should be hired strictly on our merits--our skills and experience, and ability to do the job, not on what we posted on some social network.  Social media consumer reports are a form of selective discrimination and social profiling.  My gut tells me that this could even be a violation of Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression and possibly Amendment 4 - Illegal Search and Seizure to the U.S. Constitution.  A class action law suit is in order, but the US Supreme Court limits those kinds of lawsuits.    

Courtesy of an article dated July 13, 2011 appearing in Good Technology

LINKEDIN COMMITS ATROCIOUS PRIVACY VIOLATION, USES YOUR PHOTO IN ADS WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION

LinkedIn (LNKD) has SneakedIn social advertising to its business networking service.  Here's what Nick Hughes from So Entrepreneurial says about LinkedIn's privacy infraction in a Business Insider article:  

"I discovered this little secret today and want to make sure you are aware of it.

LinkedIn is automatically opting you into their social advertising, and may be using your image and actions within advertising on their site.  Yes, this is shocking to me. 

Take this as a warning because as LinkedIn gets larger they might start to extend their ad network out onto other properties and I want to make sure I am not involved (unless I have consented to it). 

Probably good to check into this now if you didn't already.  Here is where to go and what you will read (Image below):"

[Click Image To Enlarge]

Michael Gaasterland another LinkedIn member said this about LinkedIn's Manage Social Advertising privacy goof:

"Wow. Shocking.

As it turns out, Linkedin has sneakily changed it’s members account settings, so that their name and face can be used in advertsing messages on the Linkedin platform.

Ehrm… What?!

I am not 100% surprised though, because Linkedin has a habbit of deploying socially unethical marketing techniques."

That right. You are automatically opt-ed IN for social advertising. Unasked. Unwanted. Unpaid.

That’s an example of what one LinkedIn member is saying even though the move was anticipated back in June.  It’s also being called a privacy blunder.

Yet users have been waking up only slowly to the fact that LinkedIn now combines their network activity with advertising and endorsements. They don’t seem that alarmed, or alert to the alternatives that LinkedIn could and should have considered.

I’ve been blissfully unaware of it – as have other users – until I saw a complaint with over 300 likes…. on LinkedIn. Yes my network, like me largely freeloaders on LinkedIn, has been complaining at something less than viral speed. It’s taken five days to get this far. And like me they are gradually turning off the social advertising setting.

Are we being at all hypocritical? Isn’t LinkedIn entitled to make some money out of us and if we turn this off should we feel any obligation either to pay or suggest alternatives?

Or could this have been a really interesting call from LinkedIn – to share revenues with its members like Google does with content creators?

Here’s what LinkedIn claims it is doing:

LinkedIn may sometimes pair an advertiser’s message with social content from LinkedIn’s network in order to make the ad more relevant. When LinkedIn members recommend people and services, follow companies, or take other actions, their name/photo may show up in related ads shown to you. Conversely, when you take these actions on LinkedIn, your name/photo may show up in related ads shown to LinkedIn members. By providing social context, we make it easy for our members to learn about products and services that the LinkedIn network is interacting with.

On second thoughts I really do not want to have my photograph or profile advertising companies and products.  But I wonder does this make it a privacy blunder?

It seems to me the issue is really about revenue share – this feels like Google Ads without a cut for the content creator. That’s a different and more interesting issue and a missed opportunity for LinkedIn to do something really viral and compelling.

COMMENTARY:   LinkedIn's privacy violation is appalling and could even be considered illegal.  I think the FTC frowns on people using your picture, video or audio in an advertisement without your permission.  I can see some lawsuits about this.  I am a LinkedIn member, and hope my picture was not used in this illegal and unauthorized manner.  

For those of you concerned about LinkedIn's privacy violation, Michael Gaasterland provides instructions on how to opt-out of LinkedIn's Social Ads:

How to opt-out of Linkedin social advertising program

1. Login to Linkedin
2. Choose ‘Settings’
3. Choose ‘Account’
4. Under ‘Privacy controls’, select ‘Manage Social Advertising’
5. Uncheck box ‘LinkedIn may use my name, photo in social advertising’
6. Click ‘Save’
7. You now receive a notification ‘You have successfully updated your social advertising settings’.

Thanks, Michael

P.S. Right below the 'Manage Social Advertising' link is another link titled Turn on/off enhanced advertising.   By opting out of that advertising setting, this prevents LinkedIn from serving you ads from their enhanced Advertising Partner Network.  I would recommend that you click that one OFF too.

FILING COMPLAINTS WITH FTC

I consider LinkedIn's privacy violation absolutely unacceptable, preventable and done with malice of forethought.  They absolutely knew what they were doing.  They never bothered to notify anybody about their social ad feature or requested permission to use your photograph in ads. They simply opted-in ALL LinkedIn members without their permission.  This is such a serious violation of online privacy that I have filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Comission (FTC). Here's the link so that you can file a similar complaint:

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

Courtesy of an article dated August 9, 2011 appearing in Forbes and an article dated July 27, 2011 appearing in Business Insider and an article dated July 13, 2011 appearing in Business Insider