https://onezero.medium.com/americas...g-app-has-a-data-privacy-problem-f19169a8ab2e

In addition to collecting, storing, and sharing information like a user’s age and “profile,” Latch’s privacy policy states the company may receive, store, and process information about users’ location, including general information (e.g. IP address or zip code) and more specific GPS-based information. Latch also captures and stores photos and videos of those who interact with the hardware. The privacy policy gives an example of how the physical systems installed in buildings could record a video clip when a tenant’s guest enters with a code or their smartphone.
...
By forcing you to sign a privacy agreement to open your front door, Latch helps us see how the internet of things has brought bad data policies off-line, normalizing invasive technology. It’s a new perspective on what’s really at stake when we sign that dotted line.

 

https://onezero.medium.com/americas...g-app-has-a-data-privacy-problem-f19169a8ab2e

And since the IoT is everywhere now, is there an option not to sign for most people?

 

And since the IoT is everywhere now, is there an option not to sign for most people?

You don't need 99% of the stuff IoT offers. Opt-out. I'm heading to Yellowstone near Cody, WY this summer for 10 days. No internet, no cell phones and no TV near our cabin in the hills. The kids will lose their minds but I'm going to be loving it.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...20f5cbbbf9243!8m2!3d44.5029945!4d-109.9629307

 

You don't need 99% of the stuff IoT offers. Opt-out. I'm heading to Yellowstone near Cody, WY this summer for 10 days. No internet, no cell phones and no TV near our cabin in the hills. The kids will lose their minds but I'm going to be loving it.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...20f5cbbbf9243!8m2!3d44.5029945!4d-109.9629307

I finally get to take some actual vacation over where I work. Most of the island without cell service and where there is wifi, the guests are specifically asked not to download anything

I usually camp for a few days in september, but my mom will not tolerate tenting so I rent a cabin in the beach instead

Misty Meadows Campground
Queen Charlottes Hwy, Skeena-Queen Charlotte
https://maps.app.goo.gl/JCgJQREEg6hVuQzd8

 

You don't need 99% of the stuff IoT offers. Opt-out. I'm heading to Yellowstone near Cody, WY this summer for 10 days. No internet, no cell phones and no TV near our cabin in the hills.

An application for HF radio, solar cells, and nice batteries.

 

An application for HF radio, solar cells, and nice batteries.

I'll have a 980SSB CB radio in the car for HF backup comms while 'in country' but I seldom use the thing. After so many years as a HF radio professional (operator and maintainer) in the military running 2-30 MHz networks on ship and shore, being on a radio reminds me of endless long hours of work in some not so nice places so it's the opposite of fun..

 

SKYKING SKYKING DO NOT ANSWER
AUTHENTICATION ROMEO

Oops... wrong frequency.

CANDYBAR OUT

 

SKYKING SKYKING DO NOT ANSWER
AUTHENTICATION ROMEO

Oops... wrong frequency.

CANDYBAR OUT

What to know what the codes mean?
https://web.archive.org/web/2016010...gov/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Joint_Staff/320.pdf

 

https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/03/china-smart-city-exposed/

 

The problem with opting out is that you have no guarantee that they will actually honor the request. The same with deleting the recordings -- the best you can do is delete the recordings you know about. I'm definitely on the paranoid side, but I also tend to believe that if someone physically has the ability to monitor you, then sooner or later someone will come with with a reason why it just makes sense to monitor you, regardless of what the agreements might say or what the laws might say or anything else might say.

I could have quoted a number of messages in this thread to respond to...I have always found it interesting to evaluate the challenge of "what can be done about these matters?" In the quoted message, there is a reference to "what the laws might say"...and that exemplifies the challenge to which I refer.

Over my morning caffeine administration, I read:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019 Bill Text.pdf

It is the text of a bill that has been introduced in the US Senate. I found it to be an interesting read and thought some others might also find it interesting. It has a flashy name, "The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019". To be sure, in my view, this bill will go nowhere.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to respond to the "politics" aspect [in the forum prohibited manner] because the intention here is straightforward: How to mitigate the adverse impacts of information technology in legislation?

This is difficult stuff...this is very difficult stuff.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...otos-ever-app-then-company-used-them-n1003371

What isn’t obvious on Ever’s website or app — except for a brief reference that was added to the privacy policy after NBC News reached out to the company in April — is that the photos people share are used to train the company’s facial recognition system, and that Ever then offers to sell that technology to private companies, law enforcement and the military.

 

Surprise, surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle USMC would say. A decade ago, maybe more I would have been surprised but now, not so much.

Ron

 

Your Car Knows When You Gain Weight

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-hawaii-exclusive-inside-look-front-lines-intelligence-gathering/

 

It's when one buys a device whose hardware is poisoned that one's completely defenseless. There is simply no way for the user to secure the device. I think such is the case for Huawei. Here's an interesting, condensed timeline of events.

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-huawei-controversy-everything-you-need-to-know/​

 

It's when one buys a device whose hardware is poisoned that one's completely defenseless. There is simply no way for the user to secure the device. I think such is the case for Huawei. Here's an interesting, condensed timeline of events.

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-huawei-controversy-everything-you-need-to-know/​

 

https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-loses-arm-chip-design/

“ARM is complying with all of the latest regulations set forth by the US government,” the company said in a statement. "ARM values its relationship with our longtime partner HiSilicon and we are hopeful for a swift resolution on this matter," it added in a follow-up statement several hours later. "Under the current restrictions ARM cannot license any export-restrictive IP to HiSilicon."

 

And now, a man cannot even scratch his own face while driving, or he'll get ticketed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-48401901​

The Global Times newspaper says that the city's traffic authority have now cancelled his ticket, and told him that "the traffic surveillance system automatically identifies a driver's motion and then takes a photo", which is why his face-scratching had been mistaken for him taking a phone call.

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/30/apple-google-and-whatsapp-condemn-gchq-ghost-proposal.html

“First, it would require service providers to surreptitiously inject a new public key into a conversation in response to a government demand. This would turn a two-way conversation into a group chat where the government is the additional participant, or add a secret government participant to an existing group chat,” signatories of the open letter, which was first sent to GCHQ on May 22, said Thursday.

“Second, in order to ensure the government is added to the conversation in secret, GCHQ’s proposal would require messaging apps, service providers, and operating systems to change their software so that it would 1) change the encryption schemes used, and/or 2) mislead users by suppressing the notifications that routinely appear when a new communicant joins a chat.”

If GCHQ sees it then NSA sees it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/newly-disclosed-nsa-documents-shed-further-light-five-eyes-alliance

At the time Privacy International and MFIA filed the lawsuit, the most recent publicly available version of the agreement governing the Five Eyes alliance—known as the UKUSA Agreement—dated back to 1955. That version of the agreement provides that the Five Eyes are to share, by default, all SIGINT they gather, as well as methods and techniques relating to SIGINT operations. An appendix to that agreement elaborates further that the Five Eyes are to share “continuously, currently and without request” both “raw” (that is, unanalyzed) intelligence in addition to “end product” (intelligence that has been subjected to analysis or interpretation).