http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=1769
Ohio drivers sue over sale of their data
July 11, 2009 by Dissent Filed under Breaches, Court, Govt, U.S.
The Ohio Department of Public Safety and Bureau of Motor Vehicles has been hit with a potentially costly class action lawsuit alleging that two senior employees contravened federal privacy laws when they authorized the sale of information in the state’s databanks. “At this point we don’t know what motivated them to sell the data,” says Charles Lester, an attorney with the Eric Deters law firm in Cincinnati, who represents plaintiffs in the suit. “We just know that the information is out there on the Internet.”
According to documents filed with the US District Court in Ohio, the names, addresses and driver’s license numbers of hundreds of thousands of Ohio drivers were sold to a consumer information aggregating company called PublicData, which in turn sold the information to another company called Shadowsoft. “Anyone can go get that information, all you have to do is pay a fee – there is no vetting process that stops you,” says Lester. “If I wanted to get the information about the judge in the case I could go online and get it!”
The suit, which has yet to be certified, asks that the state of Ohio cease selling data and make an effort to recover the information released into the public domain. “We want the practice stopped and we want damages,” says Lester. “There is a statutory penalty of a minimum amount of $2500 that people are entitled to even if they cannot show any specific harm. The federal law makes it clear this information should not be freely available.”
Read more on LawyersandSettlements.com
(Related) Perhaps Andy Warhol was wrong. Today, even 15 milliseconds of fame leaves a permanent record on the Internet...
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=1686
Privacy and the democratization of fame
July 11, 2009 by Dissent Filed under Other
Sarah Hinchliff Pearson has a commentary on differing notions of privacy for celebrities and ordinary people that seems quite timely in light of the media fascination with Michael Jackson. Pearson, a Stanford Center for Internet and Society Residential Fellow, writes, in part:
On one hand, we can tell ourselves that celebrities were asking for public scrutiny or at least should have expected it when they sought out fame. The problem is that this “bargain” is not always entered into knowingly (as in the case of those born into celebrity families) and even when it is, the precise terms of the bargain were probably not clear initially. When Britney Spears got her first record deal, could she reasonably have expected to be a favorite target of tabloids as she self-destructed years later? Of course not, just as the Dog Poop Girl could not have expected her entire country to learn of her rude behavior on the subway, despite the fact that she committed her conduct in public.
[...]
In my opinion, the double standard between the private lives of celebrities and average citizens is largely bogus. There is no compelling moral reason why private citizens used to be free from public scrutiny while the lives of celebrities were freely dissected. The only thing that has changed is how easy it is to spread information. With the Internet, celebrity status is being democratized, and with even fleeting fame, comes scrutiny.
Read more of Pearson’s blog entry here.
She raises some good points. There comes a time when no matter how famous someone is or how curious the public is, people should be left alone. Whether it’s a politician having an affair that does not break any law, or a prominent figure in the racing world acting out sadomasochistic sex fantasies with consenting adults, or a pop music star having mental health problems or family problems, being a public figure should not mean that there is no longer any right to privacy.
When did the public start believing that it was entitled to every shred of a person’s life? When did we lose our way?
Food for thought. Would the same arguments apply if they wrote articles for the New York Times? Yeah, they're Nazis, but wouldn't it be smarter to let them rant?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1746206/British-Men-Jailed-For-Online-Hate-Crimes?from=rss
British Men Jailed For Online Hate Crimes
Posted by timothy on Saturday July 11, @02:33PM from the don'tcha-just-hate-online-crime dept. censorship court
chrb writes
"Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."
...so this is a non-rational reaction? Based on what? “We didn't think of it first?” “Maybe no one will come to see the original if they can see an image on their computer?” “Hey! We gotta do something!” (I probably would never have looked at the pictures without the “Streisand Effect”)
UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User
Posted by Soulskill on Saturday July 11, @10:21AM from the pictures-of-pictures dept. censorship media court
jpatokal writes
"The National Portrait Gallery of London is threatening litigation against a Wikipedia user over his uploading of pictures of some 3,000 paintings, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain. Their claim? The photos are a 'product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer,' and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.' And remember, the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission is to 'promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible!'"
That last bit doesn't seem to be in sync with the rest. My guess? The people who approve the money (Democrats) are in power. (Just another way that funding influences science)
Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public
Posted by Soulskill on Saturday July 11, @09:17AM from the i-blame-the-schools dept.
ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results. 32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
For my Hacking 101 students. A little social engineering (“Would you mind if I plugged this 100 foot extension cord into your wall socket?) and you can tap anyone before the data is encrypted!
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/12/0259246/Stealing-Data-Via-Electrical-Outlet?from=rss
Stealing Data Via Electrical Outlet
Posted by timothy on Sunday July 12, @04:57AM from the accidentally-forget-to-label-some-220v-outlets dept. security power
Ponca City, We love you writes
"NetworkWorld reports that security consultants Andrea Barisani and Daniele Bianco are preparing to unveil their methodology at the Black Hat USA conference for stealing information typed on a computer keyboard using nothing more than the power outlet to which the computer is connected. When you type on a standard computer keyboard, electrical signals run through the cable to the PC. Those cables aren't shielded, so the signal leaks via the ground wire in the cable and into the ground wire on the computer's power supply. The attacker connects a probe to a nearby power socket, detects the ground leakage, and converts the signal back into alphanumeric characters. So far, the attack has proven successful using outlets up to about 15 meters away. The cost of the equipment to carry out the power-line attack could be as little as $500 and while the researchers admit their hacking tools are rudimentary, they believe they could be improved upon with a little time, effort and backing. 'If our small research was able to accomplish acceptable results in a brief development time (approximately a week of work) and with cheap hardware,' they say, 'Consider what a dedicated team or government agency can accomplish with more expensive equipment and effort.'"
Useful for citations? It does archive the pages...
http://www.makeuseof.com/dir/roohit-web-page-highlighter/
RoohIt: Instant Online Web Page Highlighter
RoohIt is an instant web page highlighter which lets you quickly highlight, save and share content from webpages. And I mean really quick. Just type roohit.com/ before any web URL address and you can start highlighting. No registration required and no download needed. You can highlight stuff as you surf and it saves things automatically. Also access your micro-bookmarks easily and share them with others via email, Twitter, Facebook etc.
If you liked this tool you can also check iCyte, Ibrii, Markkit and AwesomeHightlighter.
Humor
http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/rare-genetic-dissorder-duke-nukems-disease/
Rare Genetic Dissorder: Duke Nukem’s Disease
No comments:
Post a Comment