Privacy Matters

In one of Buzz Out Loud's recent episodes (episode 808), it has been reported that iPhone can take screenshots of everything a user does, which can be recovered by hackers or forensics experts. Jonathan Zdziasrski, an iPhone hacker and data forensics expert, states that iPhone takes snapshots of user's most recent action including; but not limited to, text messages, email or web browsing in order to cache it.

This issue is percieved by many people as privacy compromise, as many of the users are not aware of this issue, or they did not agree to share their information with someone else. But, in order to get the information from the iPhone, the hackers will have to have physical access to the handset, which limits the risk of privacy invasion. Issues of privacy raise the question of whether remote access to the iPhone will be possible by hackers in the future or not. Zdziasrski demonstrates in his webcast how to break the passcode locks. If he can remotely access the iPhone in the future as well, he can demonstrate that as well.

With all of the issues stated here, there are some benefits to it, as well. Law enforcement agencies can use these screenshots to track criminal activities.

After knowing some of the facts about the iPhone screenshot cache, the question comes to our mind of is it really such a huge privacy risk with physical access being required, and is the potential investigative benefit worth that risk?

Googles New Log Retention Policy

Google's anouncement of a new policy that they will reduce log retention from 18 months to 9 months has been met with suspicion from regulators in both the U.S. and Europe. The reduction is primarily a response to EU regulators, who originally were the reason for the 18 month retention policy. EU regulators have continued to press Google for further reductions, resulting in the 9 month retention policy just announced.

Google claims that the retention of logs provides them with data to design improvements in search quality, security, fraud reduction and reducing spam. Critics claim that log retention potentially compromises privacy of Google users.

Clearly, log retention is an issue of privacy for many users. Some may have little interest in keeping their search data private but others may have real concerns. Are purchases through the use of credit cards not more revealing than searches for information on the internet? Do those purchases and the use of "loyalty cards" by retailers not result in a greater loss of privacy than Google's retention of logs of users' searches?

The unstated issue seems to be that through the use of logs, Google can target advertising. Through analysis of user site searches and IP addresses, user interests can be determined to allow focused advertising. This permits Google to increase revenue through advertising sales.

When it comes to privacy issues there will always be a conflict in how much is too much, how long is too long. Is regulation of retention of logs by businesses a proper function of government or should government's role be to protect privacy of users by protecting companies like Google from being forced to share their information?

http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-feeling-the-heat-google-pledges-to-discard-user-data-after-nine-months/

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-step-to-protect-user-privacy.html

ALL YOU CAN DOWNLOAD?

Molly Wood of Buzz Out Loud posted a topic in episode 799 regarding Comcast initiating a policy of limiting broadband service to residential customers. Comcast has initiated a limit on service to 250 gigabytes per month per residential customer. First offense of exceeding this limit will result in a phone call from customer service; second offense will result in suspension of service for a period of one year.

There is debate regarding how much responsibility Comcast has to provide tools to customers to monitor usage. Comcast provides no help and says customers can find software in the marketplace if they feel they need it. Comcast argues that 250 gigs will permit 50 million e-mails, or would allow a customer to download 62,500 songs, or download 125 standard definition movies, or upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos on its service.

Comcast says the median customer usage falls somewhere between two and three gigabytes, so the limit of 250 GB will affect few customers. Comcast may be anticipating customers use of file back-up services that require hundreds of gigabytes in backing up computer files. This can occur more than once per month. Such usage could eventually overload Comcast's infrastructure.

Comcast denies that their decision is related to a dispute with FCC regarding rulings about restricting competition. Critics suggest that the move is related to Comcast's video-on-demand service. Competitors such as Cox Communications, Inc. and Time Warner have instituted limits on service. In another announcement, Comcast and Disney have signed a video-on-demand deal. Unlimited internet service could have a negative impact on the sale of video by Comcast, thus leading them to limit customer usage to protect the video sales segment of their business.

Customers who are not happy with the change can seek internet service elsewhere. Then Comcast will have to base their business decision regarding limits on their service to the profit and loss statement. This is the perfect example of capitalism at its best. Decisions are made for the business based on what is best for the business. Every other type of service is either limited or priced by volume. Other types of service (communications, consumer goods, labor, etc.) are provided on a unit cost basis. There is no reason for internet service to be any different. Rulings and regulations by the FCC and other regulatory agencies only distort the market.

References:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/08/25/daily35.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10028506-2.html

http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-comcast-to-roll-out-monthly-usage-cap/

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061121-8261.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15849491/