Online privacy

Monitoring BBM to Stop…a Water Fight

Posted on August 16, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Online privacy, Privacy, Social Networking | Leave a comment

On Friday, the Guardian reports, two young men were arrested in Colchester, charged with ‘encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offense’ after trying to organise a mass water fight via BlackBerry Messenger and Facebook. Both men will appear before a magistrate at the beginning of next month.

There are a number of concerns to point out in this case. The first is that the UK can now put itself along side Iran as a state willing to prosecute for taking part in public water fights. Iran earned this status earlier in the month after the morality police deemed participants to have behaved ‘abnormally’ and disobeying Islamic principals, leading to a series of arrests. This was all despite the fact that no cases of violence resulted and people enjoyed the three-hour escape from 40 degree heat. A London-based Iranian blogger wrote that one of the reasons the Iranian government may have been so heavy-handed with this event was the fact that it was organised via social media, which poses a threat to the government’s regime.

The second issue is that this sentiment isn’t unfamiliar in the UK right now. After the UK riots last week, Cameron made a number of statements in the emergency session of Parliament regarding the threat posed by social media. He said that there was a need to investigate whether social media sites were deemed to have contributed to criminal behaviour and if shutting them down temporarily was a viable solution to curbing the violence. BBM, widely determined to be the biggest forum by which the rioters communicated, was also offered up in the statements and has been mentioned repeatedly as its users communicate in relative privacy.

In the case of the Colchester boys and the water fight, it may be becoming obvious that these are no longer suggestions. First the pre-emptive arrest of these boys when the police should be dealing with rioters that actually committed crimes is unnecessary. Does the UK really want to be compared with Iran in shutting down members of the public peacefully organising and having fun?

But, more seriously, these young men’s use of social media and BBM to spread word of the event shows police investigators may already be watching BBM, which would be a gross violation of privacy. As with text messages, the police should have to obtain a warrant to monitor your private communication, which BBM is. As we’ve said in previous posts in the last week, social media is, to a large degree, in the public domain and shutting down these forums would violate a number of basic freedoms. But to go beyond that and restrict private communication such as BBM or text messages without a warrant is a violation of privacy. The government needs to come to grips with its ability to prevent crime rather than simply prosecute it and that restricting the rights and freedoms of all to prevent crimes being committed by a few is simply a step too far and wrong.

London Riots and Social Media

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, Social Networking, Technology | 2 Comments

The role of social networking outlets such as Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry Messenger (BBM) in contributing to the riots over the last few days has been hotly discussed. Many have voiced concern they should be shut down or limited. This kind of knee-jerk reaction to the role of social media would be unnecessary and exceedingly inappropriate. Rather than shutting these sites down, perhaps there is information to be garnered from working in conjunction with them.

BBM has been acknowledged as the network of choice for the rioters to communicate with each other due to its level of privacy from police surveillance. With nearly 40% of London’s teens choosing Blackberry as their smartphone of choice, this creates a potentially huge audience for encouraging further violence. In response, many have called for Blackberry to shut down the service temporarily to curb the violence. Patrick Spence from Blackberry said “We feel for those impacted by this weekend’s riots in London. We have engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can” and pledged to work with law enforcement and comply with the law in the UK.

Limiting social networking in the public sphere will not limit violence or deter potential criminals. In fact, they may even be feeding the public response to resolve the ongoing problems on the streets of London. Anyone following the #londonriots hashtag on Twitter will see one of the most rapid streams of disapproval of the scenes taking place in London. People are exchanging photos and videos to identify perpetrators, introducing hash tags and putting pressure on politicians and policeman to respond quickly and more resolutely and arranging community efforts to support the victims in these neighbourhoods. Additionally, many social network-savvy teens will implicate themselves on these forums, and these statements would be useful to law enforcement in apprehending offenders.

Twitter and Facebook and other public web outlets have been attributed to a number of social movements in the last several months, from Egypt to Libya and so forth. Police should be taking advantage of the masses of information people are putting on public forums rather than shutting them down due to the deplorable actions of a small minority. The vast majority of onlookers in the UK and around the globe are appalled by the riots, and I think most of them would happily see communities work with law enforcement through social networking outlets to stop the violence and bring the criminals to justice.

Protecting your Facebook privacy

Posted on August 2, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Online privacy, Privacy | 2 Comments

Big Brother Watch frequently receives messages from members of the public asking how best to protect their Facebook profile and, with it, their personal privacy.

Privacy-proofing your Facebook account in order to block people who aren’t your friends from accessing your photographs or to ensure that third-party applications are not able to access your personal information can be a bewildering process – especially as the website appears to change its privacy settings on almost daily basis.

Fast Company has put together a useful step-by-step guide demystifying this process. It’s well worth a look. Do pass it on to any friends you think may find it useful.

Hat-tip: RR

Staring at Computers

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Legal Action, Mastering the Internet, Online privacy, United States | 4 Comments

A few weeks ago, a New York, Kyle McDonald artist installed software on the computers at a number of New York Apple stores, taking thousands of webcam photos of people standing in front of them. He then created a photo exhibition calling it ‘People Staring at Computers,’ put it on his internet blog and the photos popped up on available computers in the stores where they were taken.

After posting the video, the US Secret Service raided McDonald’s apartment and shut down the website armed with a warrant on the grounds that he’d violated 18 USC section 1030, a law pertaining to computer crimes. No arrests have yet been made, but this case brings up a number of interesting ideas.

Mr McDonald is now being represented by a civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which focuses entirely on freedoms in the internet and digital sphere. Their arguments include that McDonald did not knowingly violate any laws; he sought the permission of security guards and asked the consent of a number of the individuals featured in his project. Additionally, he captured the images of people in a public place, willingly standing in front of countless cameras, albeit without their knowledge in most cases.

This particular section of law is primarily intended to protect against someone accessing computers used primarily by the US government and might impact US national security or international communication or relations. I’m quite sure that computers in an Apple Store qualify as neither. McDonald was entirely under the impression that it was within his rights to take pictures in a public place and publish them on the internet given he’d been granted the right permissions for the computers in the Apple stores in question.

However, there is also the issue of technology pushing past the limits of personal privacy in a way they never have before. Image technology has progressed so far past most legislation, that the line between technologically advanced and perverse and unnecessary intrusion into peoples’ privacy. The prevalence of mobile phone cameras, small digital cameras, CCTV cameras and other similar technology have desensitised most people to having their photo taken. This has also, in turn, made people less sensitive to their rights to their own image and to the use of such images on a public sphere without their knowledge or permission.

The number of times we step in front of a camera every day is excessive, and the expectation is surely that, at some point, our picture will get taken. But who owns the rights to that photo or determines when it can be used? Who is in the right? Should the use of these photos be controlled? Or should the images of the private individuals be protected from those who would use it without their permission? This case brings up an interesting debate about who civil liberties are protecting, I open this one up to the floor.

Space: the internet’s new frontier?

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in International, Online privacy | 5 Comments

Guest post by Nick Pickles

The UK Government is currently considering the possibility of a UK-wide firewall, which (simply put) would give the Government the ability to block access to websites from the UK.

The argument has mainly been made around file-sharing sites, and to a lesser extent child pornography, and of course the Government insists that it would never be used for political reasons.

Yet the example of the Arab Spring and the subsequent activities of Governments in shutting down social networking sites (or more disturbingly, setting up spoof sites to entrap potential trouble makers) should not be forgotten.

It is entirely possible that as part of the super-injunction/privacy debate that website blocking could potentially be on the cards – neatly demonstrated by the High Court judge who warned “the internet is out of control.”

The internet is beyond the reach of Governments. So the natural response of Governments is to seek to bring it back under their control. The first step is to block sites sharing illegal music. That path leads to not being able to read about Tienanmen Square or organise demonstrations – it is not one that a civil society should permit.

However, there is a further option – for social networks to become ISPs.

The power of a shared satellite network, providing internet access to users without reliance on physical cable under the control of Governments, would have the potential to topple the Great Firewall of China, free protestors to organise demonstrations and globalise free speech beyond the reach of overactive judiciaries.

Eventually, universal internet access will be a humanitarian cause. What it needs is someone to take the first step, and aim for the stars.

The government must lift the ban on using intercept evidence

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Databases, Online privacy, Privacy | 1 Comment

Regular visitors to the Big Brother Watch blog will be aware that BBW has long campaigned for a change in existing laws to allow intercept evidence to be used in terrorist trials.

Big Brother Watch Director Daniel Hamilton has today outlined the case for the ban to be lifted in an article for the Total Politics magazine's 'The Idea' feature:

"As long as the ban on the admissibility of intercept evidence remains in place, so do the many strange anomalies connected to it. While British courts cannot hear domestic intercept evidence, they frequently secure convictions based on overseas intercepts. Similarly, British intercepts can be used in prosecutions taking place overseas. While a conversation recorded on a hidden bug is admissible in court, a recorded phone call or intercepted email is not.

"To date, the government has opted to set aside fundamental privacy concerns in order to pursue the IMP. Such a programme, the British public has been told, will “make us safer”.

"Given that the majority of terrorist offences are committed by small groups of individuals, often operating outside the confines of mainstream society, it’s difficult to see how the IMP could possibly be successful in achieving that objective. Pinpointing terrorist activity among a database of billions of unique communications is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. All the IMP achieves is the creation of the most invasive and intrusive database in history."

You can view the extended piece here.

Nicolas Sarkozy is wrong on internet regulation

Posted on June 2, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Online privacy | 4 Comments

With the dust having settled following the recent E-G8 summit in Paris, many commentators have begun to express their concern at comments made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy championing tougher government control over the Internet.

Addressing the summit, Sarkozy argued that internet users must not forget that "governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people".

While we agree with Mr Sarkozy that the internet shouldn't be a "a parallel universe outside laws and morals", the free-flowing nature of internet content doesn't mean it should be viewed as a ripe for government regulation. Indeed, much of the internet's initial success has to do with the fact it was not constrained by state regulation.

It is curious too that a man who has been such an effective advocate for military intervention in Libya would seek to legitimise the power of "government" at all costs. Does this include the same Gadaffi-led "government" in Libya who have engaged in heavy-handed tactics such as shutting down all of the country's ISPs in order to suppress rebel, anti-government sentiments?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sarkozy's comments have been echoed by the fascist government of the People's Republic of China who argue that their tough approach to internet regulation (which includes blocking access to the Big Brother Watch website and viewing images of Tiananmen Square massacre) has "protected the Chinese people" from external threats

Of all the articles out there offering reactions to M. Sarkozy's speech, we recommend the observations of Don Tapscott from the University of Toronto.

"Without the Internet — and social media in particular — the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would have never occurred.

"Sarkozy’s problem is that, like other political leaders, he doesn’t like a medium over which the government does not have final authority. With the Internet’s arrival, lofty concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of thought are actually gaining traction.

Take a look here.

The surveillance state – now even universities are at it

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Online privacy | 9 Comments

By Will Bickford Smith, Education Officer at the University of Nottingham Students’ Union

British universities are institutions which have stood the test of time based on their fundamental principles of academic freedom and the pursuit knowledge without fear of reprisal.

Therefore it should cause some alarm that Time Higher reports today that De Montfort University plans to monitor its students’ whereabouts using the University’s wi-fi network – a proposal so Orwellian that even the President of the National Union of Students has suggested that students will be feel like “inmates under surveillance”.

Many universities already have systems in place for students to register their attendance at seminars (and some for lectures), and universities argue that this is to ensure that students have been exposed to a required level of course content for them to be able to progress. However De Montfort plans to go a stage further, into unchartered territory, by using its wi-fi network to track the electronic chip in each student’s ID card.

And from 2012/13, students at De Montfort will have to fork out £9000 per year to pay for the privilege of being afforded the same freedom as a prisoner with a police tag.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 24 Next »

Media Enquiries

07505 448925(24hr)