Google plans to spy on your home
Robert Weinert
With the ever quickening speed of technological advancement showing no signs
of slowing down who knows where this will all end?
------ Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:52:42 +1000
To: <bcre...@aapt.net.au>
Subject: Google plans to spy on your home
The Register <http://www.theregister.co.uk/> » Software <http://www.theregister.co.uk/software/> » Applications <http://www.theregister.co.uk/software/apps/> »
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/03/google_eavesdropping_software/
Google developing eavesdropping software
By Faultline
<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2006/09/03/google_eavesdropping_software/>
Published Sunday 3rd September 2006 08:02 GMT
Comment
The first thing that came out of our mouths when we heard that Google
is working on a system that listens to what's on your TV playing in the
background, and then serves you relevant adverts, was "that's cool, but
dangerous".
The idea appeared in Technology Review
citing Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, who says these
ideas will show up eventually in real Google products - sooner rather
than later.
The
idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is
heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV
turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then
shows you relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results,
or a chat room on the subject.
And,
of course, we wouldn't put it past Google to store that information
away, along with the search terms it keeps that you've used, and the
web pages you have visited, to help it create a personalised profile
that feeds you just the right kind of adverts/content. And given that
it is trying to develop alternative approaches to TV advertising, it
could go the extra step and help send "content relevant" advertising to
your TV as well.
We suspect that such a world would be rather eerie, with a constant feeling of déjà vu every time anyone watched TV.
Technology Review
said Google talked about this software in Europe last June, and that it
breaks sound into a five-second snippets to pick out audio from a TV,
reducing the snippet to a digital "fingerprint", which it matches on an
internet server.
Given
the furore caused when AOL released searches on the internet, there
might be more than a few civil liberties activists less than happy for
Google to put this idea into practice. Also, given that Google provides
the software link between its search software and the microphone, it's
a small step to making the same link to any webcams attached to the PC.
Pretty soon the security industry is going to find a way to hijack the Google feed and use it for full on espionage.
Google
says that its fingerprinting technology makes it impossible for the
company (or anyone else) to eavesdrop on other sounds in the room, such
as personal conversations, because the conversion to a fingerprint is
made on the PC, and a fingerprint can't be reversed, as it's only an
identity.
But
we should think that "spyware" might take on an extra meaning if
someone less scrupulous decided on a similar piece of software.
The
Google program converts sound into graphs, weeds out background noise,
and reduces the graphs to key features that can then be translated into
just four bytes of information, so that the fingerprints for an entire
year of television programming would add up to no more than a few
gigabytes, the company said.
Meanwhile,
in an unconnected announcement this week, Google said it has signed a
multi-year agreement with online auction giant eBay, to provide
text-based advertising outside the US.
The companies also plan to launch a "click-to-call" advertising function on eBay using Skype and Google Talk.
Copyright © 2006, Faultline
<http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/about.asp?crypt=%B3%9C%C2%97%8B%80> (
http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/about.asp?crypt=%B3%9C%C2%97%8B%80)
Faultline
is published by Rethink Research, a London-based publishing and
consulting firm. This weekly newsletter is an assessment of the impact
of the week's events in the world of digital media. Faultline is where
media meets technology. Subscription details here <http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/subscribe.asp>
(http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/subscribe.asp
).
Related stories
Google eyes filing cabinets <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/05/google_ocr/>
(5 September 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/05/google_ocr/
Google Book Search goes live <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/31/google_book_downloads/>
(31 August 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/31/google_book_downloads/
eBay dials Google for 'click-to-call' advertising <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ebay_google_skype/>
(29 August 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ebay_google_skype/
Google bundles software apps <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/google_bundles_software/>
(29 August 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/google_bundles_software/
Are Google's glory days behind it? <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/colly_myers_interview/>
(25 August 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/colly_myers_interview/
© Copyright 2006
------ End of Forwarded Message
Disturbing Facts About Google
Published: 12/02/2005 09:56:15
Google are clearly gathering information about us but refuse to tell us why. It's nothing new to us, but while they cannot control normal SERPs, they do however control who is viewing what and when.
We run Google adverts in order
to survive. Does this mean we shouldn't share the information below? If you
know an alternative way to sustain costs please get in touch.
Please note, Google does not track you by simply viewing pages containing
their adverts.
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines ; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.
2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."
3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.
4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.
5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.
6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.
7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."
8. Google is not your friend:
By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn't even answer email from webmasters.
9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/060604/bus_060604012.shtml
Google mail catches too much flak
Product review
June 6, 2004
By MATTHEW FORDAHL
Associated Press
Google Inc.'s free e-mail service has been derided as an obnoxious privacy invasion that will suck up vast amounts of user data and deposit information into a massive database that never disappears.
And that's before it's even officially available.
The Internet search leader says its computers will merely be scanning e-mail so it can place relevant and nonintrusive text ads next to messages. That's how Google plans to make a buck — and be able to offer the service without charging the user.
While privacy advocates pontificated, lawmakers legislated and Google posted notices about how important privacy is, I got a chance to try out Web-based Gmail. I was generally pleased, though it's not yet a finished product.
As for privacy, there are a lot bigger fish to fry as messages travel from computer to computer across the Internet and into the recipient's Google account.
The privacy debate tends to obscure assessment of other Gmail attributes — namely usability, storage and search. In most of these areas, Google trounces other free e-mail services, including those offered by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo! Inc.
Gmail's most impressive feature is its 1 gigabyte of storage per user. It makes Microsoft Hotmail's 2 megabytes (1/500th) seem stingy, as well as Yahoo Mail's old limit of 4 megabytes, which will soon be boosted to 100 megabytes.
Instead of trashing messages that might be useful in the future, the e-mails and attachments in Gmail can be archived.
Google, of course, incorporates its powerful search function, making both active and archived messages quickly accessible. The entire inbox can be searched from a text box that appears on every page. Beyond that, Gmail organizes messages by conversation, rather than by simple chronological order.
There are other flourishes: Gmail can be configured to mark messages addressed to me as opposed to a mailing list. Messages also can be marked with a star and everything in that category called up with a click.
Actions such as automatically archiving a message can be programmed. Similarly, user-defined labels can be attached to any message or conversation, making it easier to sort them.
Though Gmail is mostly polished, some areas need improvement. For one, it doesn't work with third-party e-mail programs such as Outlook or Eudora. Its Web-based interface also chokes Safari, Apple Compu ter Inc.'s Web browser.
The help system also lacked any explanation as to whether messages and attachments are scanned for viruses. It also didn't do any better than my Hotmail or Yahoo accounts in identifying messages as spam.
As for the much-maligned advertisements, I found them to be unobtrusive and well-targeted, just like the text ads that appear alongside Google searches. Google also occasionally provides a list of "related" links to sites and news stories beneath the ads.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHEN YOU GET TO THIS LINK BELOW – CLICK ON "AUGUST 2006" FOR MOST RECENT ARTICLES ON THIS SUBJECT
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004864.php
The World's Worst Internet Laws Sneaking Through the Senate
August 03, 2006
[Update: The Cybercrime Treaty was ratified by the Senate
late last night. The U.S. will
now have to comply to requests for assistance from fifteen countries, and growing.]
The Convention on Cybercrime is a sweeping treaty that has been
waiting in the wings of the Senate for nearly three years. Now the
administration is putting pressure on the Senate to ratify it in the next two
days. If it does, it would mean the U.S. would enforce not just our own, but
the rest of the world's bad Net laws. Call your Senator now, and ask
them to hold its ratification.
The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' "cybercrime" laws - even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdiction's requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation.
The treaty came into force last year on the international front, but not in the US, where it needs to be ratified by Congress first. So far, ratification has been blocked thanks to a "hold" placed by conservative lawmakers. But Republican senators this week are now being heavily pressured by the administration to drop their objections, and let it fly.
Ratifying the Cybercrime treaty would introduce not just one bad Internet law into America's lawbooks, but invite the enforcement of all the world's worst Internet laws. Call your senators now, and tell them to hold this invasive treaty at bay. - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/2006_08.php
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Senate Ratifies Cybercrime Treaty
By Associated Press
6:49 PM PDT, August 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has ratified a treaty under which the United States will join more than 40 other countries, mainly from Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet.
The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, ratified late Thursday, is the first international treaty seeking to address Internet crimes by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques and increasing cooperation among nations.
The convention had been signed by 38 European nations plus the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa, as of the end of 2005. It was opened for signature in 2001.
"While balancing civil liberty and privacy concerns, this treaty encourages the sharing of critical electronic evidence among foreign countries so that law enforcement can more effectively investigate and combat these crimes," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
The convention targets hackers, those spreading destructive computer viruses, those using the Internet for the sexual exploitation of children or the distribution of racist material and terrorists attempting to attack infrastructure facilities or financial institutions.
"This treaty provides important tools in the battles against terrorism, attacks on computer networks, and the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet, by strengthening U.S. cooperation with foreign countries in obtaining electronic evidence," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. "The Convention is in full accord with all U.S. constitutional protections, such as free speech and other civil liberties, and will require no change to U.S. laws."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5973735.html
Fuzzy logic behind Bush's cybercrime treaty
- By
Declan McCullagh, CNET
News.com
Published on ZDNet News: November 28, 2005, 11:15 AM PT
Privacy - Federal government
Commentary--If
you believe President Bush, a "cybercrime" treaty about to be voted
on by the U.S. Senate is needed to thwart online vandals and track down
Internet miscreants.
Bush claims the treaty, formally approved by a Senate committee this month, will "deny safe havens to criminals, including terrorists, who can cause damage to U.S. interests from abroad, using computer systems."
But in reality, the Convention on Cybercrime will endanger Americans' privacy and civil liberties--and place the FBI's massive surveillance apparatus at the disposal of nations with much less respect for individual liberties.
For instance, if the U.S. and Russia ratify it, President Vladimir Putin would be able to invoke the treaty's powers to unmask anonymous critics on U.S.-based Web sites and perhaps even snoop on their e-mail correspondence. This is no theoretical quibble: The onetime KGB apparatchik has squelched freedom of speech inside Russia and regularly muzzles journalists and critics.
There's an easy fix. The U.S. Senate could attach an amendment to the treaty saying the FBI may aid other nations only if the alleged "crime" in their country also is a crime here. The concept is called dual criminality, and the treaty lets nations choose that option.
Requiring dual criminality would let the FBI investigate actual transnational crimes, such as computer intrusions and virus creation. But trumped-up offenses, like a blogger "questioning President Putin," would not trigger U.S. aid.
Unfortunately, neither the Bush administration nor the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been willing to make that change, calling it too "rigid."
"This is in the interest of U.S. law enforcement, which aggressively utilizes these treaties to gain evidence abroad and would be hamstrung by a rigid dual-criminality provision in all cases," said a Nov. 8 report prepared by committee chairman Sen. Richard Lugar , R-Ind. "Therefore, the United States will be able to use this (treaty) to obtain electronic evidence in cases involving money laundering, conspiracy, racketeering, and other offenses under U.S. law that may not have been criminalized in all other countries."
No wonder that U.S. Internet service providers are worried about becoming surveillance arms for despotic regimes. One lobbyist told me the industry doesn't believe the Bush administration's assurances that the treaty's awesome powers will never be misused. (Remember that this is the same administration that said the same thing about the Patriot Act--and has been proven wrong.)
Mutual assistance: Internet surveillance
Fully half of the treaty, drafted by the Council of Europe, deals with mutual assistance. (The Council is a quasi-governmental group of 46 nations, including European nations, Russia, the U.S., Canada, Japan and Mexico.)
The text spells out exactly what that means in practice. Included on the list: Internet providers must cooperate with electronic searches and seizures without reimbursement; the FBI must conduct electronic surveillance "in real time" on behalf of another government; U.S. businesses can be slapped with "expedited preservation" orders preventing them from routinely deleting logs or other data.
In a letter to the Senate, the American Civil Liberties Union spelled out some of the problems. "France and Germany have laws prohibiting the advertisement for sale of Nazi memorabilia or even discussing Nazi philosophy, activities that are protected in the United States under the First Amendment," the letter said. "These countries could demand assistance from the United States to investigate and prosecute individuals for activities that are constitutionally protected in this country."
Other potential problems with the treaty include requiring that participating nations outlaw Internet-based copyright infringement as a "criminal offense" even if it's not done for a profit, and prohibiting, in some cases, the "distribution" of computer programs that can be used for illicit purposes.
It's true that there are some positive elements of the treaty that promise to help reduce cybercrime. But the lack of dual criminality is a real concern, especially when it's easily fixed with an amendment. Now's the time to let your senators know what you think.
biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET
News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection
between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as
Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for
The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.
Works
Both Ways For years now many countries have been forced to comply with
Bush's requests to infirmation under th... (Read
the rest)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Convention on Cybercrime
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm
--
NOTE FROM BOB - Please write me back occasionally to say "Thank You" for the emails I send out. That lets me know you are getting them. rober...@gmail.com - If you wish to be removed from my list - I will do it promptly on the first request - just say UNSUBSCRIBE in subject line of return email.