MetaFilter posts tagged with privacy and brokenlink

FTC imposes $10M fine against ChoicePoint for data breach

mk1gti — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:41:45 -0800

FTC imposes $10M fine against ChoicePoint for data breach The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has fined ChoicePoint $10 million for a data breach that allowed identity thieves posing as legitimate businesses to steal social security numbers, credit reports, and other data from nearly 140,000 people. This is the largest fine ever levied by the FTC. ChoicePoint also has to set up a 'trust fund' for people victimized by identity thieves. From the article: 'As part of its agreement with the FTC, ChoicePoint will also have to submit to comprehensive security audits every two years for the next 20 years.'" BusinessWeek has additional info. Perhaps there might be hope for individual privacy after all. Let's all keep our fingers crossed.

Interactive Pre-Recorded Voices

mattr — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:26:59 -0800

A Marketing and Promotional Urinal Screen - I mean - WTF? Is there nowhere I can go and not be bombarded by advertising...now when I go for a 'slash' I can be detected 'visiting' the urinal, and a pre-recorded voice can 'interact' with me while I read the graphics. Honestly, I never, ever, ever wanted to interact whilst standing at a urinal...please don't make me start interacting in there!

Ubiquitous morality

christina — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:06:46 -0800

All watched over by machines of loving grace is Adam Greenfield's take on the consequences for designers of ubicomp. Setting moral guidelines seems critical in these early days of technological encroachment-- but how long can decency hold out against the promise of profit? I was forwarded a recent email from the CEO a major bookseller that made it clear that it's possible for them to track everything I do in their stores and online, and thank goodness they choose not to take advantage. But how long will that last? And with homeland security crumbling our civil liberties, article's like Adam's that remind us about our responsibility are even more important than ever.

Why does Scalia hate America?

skallas — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 05:23:00 -0800

Why does Scalia hate America? Justice "Fat Tony" Scalia orders reporters to erase tapes of one of his speeches. Aren't public servents supposed to be public?

milkshake

squirrel — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:24:56 -0800

Restaurant Industry Warns Members to Beware Strip-Search Hoax. "If anyone requests a manager or other employee to order someone to disrobe, ignore their request because it is a privacy invasion." Anyone want to supersize their sexual assault?

This is not the 555 area code

soyjoy — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:25:40 -0800

Now it's officially a trend: Attacking the privacy of those who invade privacy (bottom of page) by publicizing their information. What's the verb for this going to be? I think "Barrying" should be a contender.

No more Scarlet Letter!

aacheson — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:41:02 -0800

Is this your fetus? Are you the one I slept with? Remember when we discussed this before? Florida has now been forced by 4 plaintiffs and the ACLU to repeal the so-called Scarlet Letter law that forces women who are pregnant and giving children up for adoption to take out an ad local papers once a week for 4 weeks, stating her name and her sexual history in the last year, to let men know if they *might* be the father. Here is the ACLU legal brief. The details about the decision are in the first link. Thank god for the ACLU.

dejah420 — Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:33:19 -0800

Women who put babies up for adoption required to publish sexual pasts Web sites can't collect info on minors, but Florida wants all women, including minors, to publish their sexual history in local newspapers before they're allowed to give their child up for adoption. Abortions are difficult to get in Florida, almost impossible for some minors because of parental notification and permission requirements, yet wouldn't this law push more women towards abortion rather than towards adoption?

beth — Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:25:02 -0800

Pregnancy test results are not considered part of confidential medical records. Why, you say? Because the cops wanted to find out who dumped an abandoned baby, and subpoenaed Planned Parenthood's records to see who had gotten positive pregnancy test results recently. The rationale for the judge's ruling? "...the records aren't medical records because the staff who provide pregnancy tests aren't required to be doctors or nurses."

justlisa — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:22:26 -0800

Investigators Want Records From Planned Parenthood Where do we draw the line between patient privacy and investigating crimes? A county judge has ruled that the records be turned over to the sheriff. Planned Parenthood is appealing.

Ty Webb — Thu, 30 May 2002 09:29:21 -0800

Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I. (NY Times link) As part of a sweeping effort to transform the F.B.I. into a domestic terrorism prevention agency, Attorney General John Ashcroft has decided to relax restrictions on the bureau's ability to conduct domestic spying in counterterrorism operations, senior government officials said today. Here's the Wash. Post's take on the story.

machaus — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:49:39 -0800

Speaking of Pat Robertson , if the 700 club thinks that this isn't the mark of the beast, sign me up for the pre-implant kool aid anesthetic. As long as I don't have to carry the smoking man's alien baby, I'll be a good citizen.

jeremias — Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:33:51 -0800

Windows Media Player records your viewing and listening habits. But, it's ok cause Microsoft changed their privacy policy to reflect this. Does anyone get surprised by this sort of thing any more?

fooljay — Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:20:08 -0800

As if you weren't depressed enough, now the world knows you're taking Prozac

hmgovt — Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:33:46 -0800

No Hiding Place "According to most experts in the field, a police state with powers of control and surveillance beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler or Stalin could now be established in Britain within 24 hours" Here's how...

mathowie — Sun, 15 Apr 2001 07:55:16 -0800

The ACLU wants to protect your privacy from government electronic surveillance programs like Echelon and Carnivore. Their full page ad in today's NYT claims 4th amendment rights are being violated by the US government, which is overstepping their bounds, and nearly free of up-to-date laws. Is it to late or can anything be done to protect civilian electronic communication?

southisup — Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:15:53 -0800

Confidentiality. A lot of people would probably expect such a conversation to be confidential, although that is neither promised by the web site nor apparently required of their operators.

The TV news here in Melbourne covered the story this morning and skirted the subject of confidentiality, but Wired has an interesting piece. The New Zealand Herald has an edited transcript in the first of it's articles.

There's an uproar if a doctor or a priest breaks a confidence, even if it leads to a murder being solved. Why so little fuss here?

baylink — Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:37:37 -0800

Well, congratulations; you won your TiVo. So, now, are you wondering what they're doing to you with it?

silusGROK — Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:25:51 -0800

JunkBusters voices concerns of Amazon's new honor pay system... an interesting link for all of us here, as we've noticed a proliferation of blogs/personal sites (including MeFi) using the system. Do you want Amazon to know you're a MetaFillistine? Comments?

warhol — Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:12:07 -0800

Network Solutions sells out. The once-monopoly has decided to pool all their domain name registration information and sell it to the spammers of the world. From their marketing website, "Taking advantage of our position as a market leader, we have organized our pool of over 15 million registered domain names into a customer database of over 5 million unique customers. Our data service offers access to the key decision-makers behind millions of leading Web businesses."

True, there is a privacy policy, and you can try and protect yourself following their instructions, but it would seem that once the cat's out of the bag... And, what's to keep someone from purchasing the database of email addresses, fax numbers, telephone numbers, and addresses and selling them off to someone else?

rich — Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:58:38 -0800

Privacy makes strides online. I'm actually pretty amazed by the ruling - while I think this is a great thing, could it be used for evil?

thescoop — Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:25:34 -0800

Judiciary Seeks Public Comment on Internet Access to Court Documents "As federal courts make the transition from paper to electronic case files, the Judicial Conference of the United States is studying the privacy and security implications of vastly wider public access to court documents via the Internet. Public comment is sought."

Further down they tell you that it'll cost 7 cents a page, even online. From the same folks who waited years to put up Supreme Court dockets and opinions on the official site.

daddyray — Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:03:08 -0800

Invasion of privacy may be offset by cheaper insurance If this doesn't scare the hell out of you you don't drive a car.

Sure it is an excellent idea for fleet management and for personal security.

But do we really want insurance companies to know everything about our driving habits and whereabouts? Think about it. They can dictate your rate based on your speed, and ultimately can base your claim on data collected while you were driving. Big insurance is one of the most financial powerful forces out there, next to big tobacco. They are already invasive, requiring blood samples and medicals for life policies. Imagine if they could collect the intimate details of our daily lives.

anildash — Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:28:53 -0800

Another innovation from Digital Convergence:
In addition to having a pretty much useless product, CueCat's product-release-to-privacy-violation rate is spectacular! To quote their email:

Dear :CueCat member,
We've been alerted to a security breach in our system that may have exposed certain members' names and email addresses. As one of the members who may be susceptible, we want to explain to you how you may be affected and what we are doing to rectify the situation. (more...)

silusGROK — Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:05:47 -0800

Amazon's new privacy policy makes any information you give them a saleable asset. I could have sworn that I saw a link to Amazon's new policy here on MeFi, but now I can't find it. Anyway, when I saw the link my first question was how the old and new policies differed. Then a friend pointed me at this CNNfn article. Whaddy think? Gives me the creeps...