SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Last year, you might remember that Verizon was in the news for reaching an agreement with the FCC. The issue centered around the tracking of its customers without consent. In reality, carriers have been doing this for years, but privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked Verizon and the FCC to put a stop to it. In the end, Verizon agreed to stop tracking customers unless they expressly agreed to opt-in to the program. The agreement between Verizon and the FCC was roundly seen as a win by privacy advocates and consumer rights groups.
Unfortunately, it looks like the practice is still in effect. Philip Neustrom, the co-founder of Shotwell Labs, recently found two demo websites that would return account details if visited from a mobile connection. By simply entering a zip code and clicking a button, the site would spit out the full name, current location, and more information.
It would appear that these sites are grabbing the information from the same process that Verizon got busted for. That program, the Unique Identifier Header, added information to HTTP requests from Verizon customers and then, for a fee, would let websites see the info. AT&T has a similar plan called the "Mobile Identity API".
You know what would fix this? A few more mergers.
Source: https://www.androidauthority.com/verizon-att-selling-information-807684/
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:28AM (10 children)
Privacy is dead. May as well sign up on Facebook and Twitter, citizen.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:04AM (3 children)
Why accept that? This invasive snooping cuts across all demographics. How about a 15 million person march on Washington?
Yes, of course I'm dreaming. There aren't that many Americans who have a clue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:07AM (2 children)
Well, there's me and then there's Craig. At least, I hear his voice. Craig always tells me things, like "burn that" or "kill the cat". Craig is real!
That's two of us!
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:20AM (1 child)
Craig is deceiving you! He's not sensitive to your privacy!!!
Wanna proof? Well, read no more than the privacy policy of his list [craigslist.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @04:45PM
Not to be silly, but what's the problem with this privacy policy. I did a superficial scan, but in the 10 seconds I glanced I didn't see anything particularly worrying. in fact, given it is short and in plain English, I'm more inclined to believe it than the 15-page 8-point font ones everywhere now-a-days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:05AM (2 children)
My...
Cold...
Dead...
Hands!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:19AM (1 child)
At least we will know where they are, and it won't be like the last time, searching everywhere, and in the mean time, you all handless zombie-ing in the mean while. Remember, no hands, no texting! What kind of life is that for a zombie, anyway?
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday October 18 2017, @06:44PM
Seems that he has better sensitivity left in the left hand (!) than the right one (...).
Can't imagine where that imbalance came from.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)
Privacy is not dead. A warrant is required to get your cell phone location. Unless you are willing to pay for it.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:57PM
Correction,
A warrant is required if your location is to be relied on in court as evidence deriving from digital surveillance. No such requirement exists if they knew where you were from digital surveillance, and are willing to testify that "Bob" just happened to be walking by at that moment.
The distinction is that prior to cell data aggregation, the merit of probable cause had to be determined before the invasion of privacy commenced. Now it is determined after.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 18 2017, @04:41PM
I have news for you, if someone you know is on Facebook. You're probably already on Facebook. XYZ just tagged you in a picture on Facebook . . . etc, etc.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"