Microsoft backs off of CISPA "support"

The NSA and creepy right-wing Republicans seem determined to jam through something that will crush privacy in America and destroy our traditional values, but it may be getting a bit harder to do.

Love them or hate them, Microsoft carries enough weight to win or lose, and the company is now shifting from its mild support to raising questions about CISPA. Microsoft and the rest of the tech community needs to be encouraged by consumers to fully drop support for these attacks on privacy.

More from CNET:

In response to queries from CNET, Microsoft, which has long been viewed as a supporter of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, said this evening that any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers." Microsoft added that it wants to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy." That's a noticeable change -- albeit not a complete reversal -- from Microsoft's position when CISPA was introduced in November 2011.

Case for legal action against Murdoch in USA building, over 1,000 phones likely hacked in UK

Although this latest report from The Guardian doesn't specifically say Fox News was involved in hacking, it does throw Fox News into the scandal by suggesting there are reports of something that involving a breach of privacy. It's unfortunate that too many Democrats play the Fox News game of pretending as though they are fair and balanced, though perhaps it is out of fear. Whatever it is, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media empire may have some problems in the US in the very near future.

Lewis said that he had been contacted by a number of people since he arrived in the US last weekend "raising issues against other [News Corp] titles or Fox News, not necessarily about hacking but about other untoward dark arts to obtain information that should be private." He added that the new complaints were unproven allegations.

Lewis told reporters that he had taken on a fourth case of alleged phone hacking in the US. Previously, it had been known that he was representing three individuals, one of whom is an American citizen and two of whom are Europeans who believe their phones were hacked while visiting America.

In addition, Siegel, a former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said he had been contacted by six individuals raising complaints about News Corp outlets. "My experience in these sorts of cases is that when people sense you are serious and balanced in your approach, they begin to come out of the woodwork," he said.

And Bloomberg reports that in the UK over 1,000 cell phones were likely hacked by News of the World.

Employers banned from asking for Facebook passwords in Maryland

We had reported earlier that employers have been asking prospective employees, in job interviews, to provide their Facebook username and password, so the job interviewer can purview your entire Facebook account, including any private sections (with photos, etc) that it might contain.

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

We learn today that at least one state cares about privacy. It's creepy and an invasion of privacy for an employer or potential employer to ask for password details and it may also be illegal.  And if it's not, it should be.

Maryland on Monday became the first state in the nation to ban employers from requesting access to the social media accounts of employees and job applicants.

The state’s General Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit employers from requiring or seeking user names, passwords or any other means of accessing personal Internet sites such as Facebook as a condition of employment.

NOTE FROM JOHN: The Obama administration, and congress, really ought to intervene here. Putting an end to this is not only a pro-"jobs" message, it also is a no-brainer in terms of something the public would easily support, and thus gain kudos for whichever politicians jump on this first.

Why I'm worried about Project Glass

I know that John and others are incredibly excited about Google's Project Glass (Google's new project to put the Internet into a pair of eyeglasses). And, to a certain extent, I share in that excitement. But, aside from the fact that if and when Google Glasses become popular people are going to be driving cars with screens in front of their faces, I see further potential drawbacks to the increasingly digital existence that the product could bring (I'll go ahead and point out the irony of illustrating my concerns via a blog post up front).

As I wrote for the Kenyon Observer earlier, Project Glass reminds me of a book I read in middle school. And not in a good way. The book is M.T. Anderson's Feed, published in 2004, which illustrates a future in which everyone has chips planted in their heads at birth. The chips, or "feeds" do everything the Internet currently does and more: it's a search engine, instant messenger and online shopping mall. But, as I point out in my Observer post, your feed has a more important function:

...it constantly accumulates, aggregates and sells your personal information to corporations, which build up databases of buyer histories that help them tailor advertisements on an individual level. In one scene the main character, Titus, is picking out a hovercar and immediately receives competing advertisements for the two models he's considering: the ad for the smaller, sportier one shows him and his girlfriend on a romantic getaway; the ad for the larger one shows him taking all of his friends to a party. Both companies have access to Titus' mind to the point where they can literally construct dreams in his head about how the world could, and should, be for him.

Throughout the book, Titus and his cadre of shallow friends are gleeful participants in an empty, entertainment-driven culture featuring the hit sitcom "Oh? Wow! Thing!" and the constant message of "buy, buy, buy" in the background, personalized to fit their immediate desires. Not to spoil the ending, but when Titus' girlfriend's feed malfunctions, damaging her brain, the corporations in charge are unwilling to help her because she isn't a prolific shopper; helping her isn't worth it.

So why does this book have anything to do with Project Glass? Because securing the Internet to the front of your face is as close as you can come to putting it inside your head. The idea makes Google's famous "Don't be evil" mantra seem increasingly Orwellian:

I read [Feed] before things like Amazon.com's "customers who bought this also bought..." feature became really big, so the concept of personalized ads seemed plausible but nevertheless somewhat alien. Only a few years later my email, Facebook and Youtube accounts are all bombarding me with a combination of advertisements geared to suit me and me alone (in case I need a reminder that I'm young and single, I have my own lineup of Jewish dating, ab workout and college-themed clothing sites only one click away). This form of advertising, made possible by a massive network of data-mining and information-selling, is now so ubiquitous that companies don't even feel the need to hide the fact that they're doing it.

Don't get me wrong, there are uses for personalized advertising. As unlikely as I am to buy anything off of the Internet, I'm far more likely to buy something that is based on my search history than a product shown at random. But are the benefits of assimilating technology with my brain worth the costs?

[When] I saw the video promoting Project Glass, Feed was naturally the first thing that came to mind. How else could I interpret a systematic attempt to eliminate the ever-shrinking (and beneficial) gap between person and computer? While unlimited and instantaneous information has its uses, there is still a reason we go outside: to look at something other than a screen. The product is, without a doubt, incredibly cool. However, I worry that we have become complacent, and even excited, about a world that looks increasingly like this.

New "cybersecurity" bill may be worse than SOPA

One way or another, Congress is eager to get their hands on your private emails and do whatever they want with that information. What is even worse is that there's no interest in preserving privacy or providing any oversight in case data is mishandled. There is no reason why the NSA or DOD should have unlimited access to everyone's private email, as is the case with this new proposed legislation.

Click through to the TechDirt article about the lousy legislation that is receiving healthy support in Congress and what you can do about it. Much like the SOPA struggle, people need to speak out before it's too late.

While most folks are looking elsewhere, it appears that Congress is trying to see if it can sneak an absolutely awful "cybersecurity" bill through Congress. We've discussed how there's been some fighting on the Senate side concerning which cybersecurity bill to support, but there's a similar battle going on in the House, and it appears that the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill, known as CISPA (for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) or HR 3523 is winning out, with a planned attempt to move it through Congress later this month. The bill is awful -- and yet has somehow already gained over 100 sponsors. In an attempt to pretend that this isn't a "SOPA-like" problem, the supporters of this bill are highlighting the fact that Facebook, Microsoft and TechAmerica are supporting this bill.

However, this is a terrible bill for a variety of reasons. Even if we accept the mantra that new cybersecurity laws are needed (despite a near total lack of evidence to support this -- and, no, fearmongering about planes falling from the sky doesn't count), this bill has serious problems.

Tories introduce law that increases phone/web spying in UK

It was a bad idea when Labour introduced this and it's no better under the Conservatives. Besides being intrusive for the people of Great Britain, it's also painfully difficult to troll through that much data with much effectiveness. The Guardian:

Ministers are to introduce a new law allowing police and security services to extend their monitoring of the public's email and social media communications, the Home Office has confirmed.

It is expected that the new system will allow security officials to scrutinise who is talking to whom and exactly when the conversations are taking place, but not the content of messages.

Labour tried to introduce a similar system using a central database tracking all phone, text, email and internet use but that was ditched in 2009. It followed concerns raised by internet service providers and mobile phone operators over the project's feasibility, and anxieties over who would foot the bill.

Are employers who ask job applicants for Facebook usernames, passwords breaking the law?

It's still difficult to say what Facebook's actual position is on this issue of employers asking prospective employees for their Facebook username and password, so they can peruse your account as part of the job interview process.

Facebook's initial response was quite forceful, yet their follow-up later the same day suggested they may now ignore the attacks on privacy.

With the election season kicking into high gear, a few senators are calling for an inquiry. Employers demanding Facebook passwords is as outrageous as them asking for private letters or emails. It may be a soft economy and employers may have the upper hand but asking for Facebook passwords is none of their business.

"In an age where more and more of our personal information — and our private social interactions — are online, it is vital that all individuals be allowed to determine for themselves what personal information they want to make public and protect personal information from their would-be employers. This is especially important during the job-seeking process, when all the power is on one side of the fence," Schumer said in a statement.

Specifically, the senators want to know if this practice violates the Stored Communications Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Those two acts, respectively, prohibit intentional access to electronic information without authorization and intentional access to a computer without authorization to obtain information.

The senators also want to know whether two court cases relating to supervisors asking current employees for social media credentials could be applied to job applicants.

Facebook buckles under pressure on privacy

When people ask me why I don't have a Facebook account, it's precisely because of moves like this by Facebook. I tired of their ever-changing privacy policies and their latest flip-flop is no better. The initial response to employer demands for the passwords of job applicants was good, but hours later it changed. The Facebook communications team then took over the discussion and went wobbly.

A decidedly more conciliatory approach was just sent to me by a Facebook spokesperson. They went from "initiating legal action" to a "engaging with policy makers and other stakeholders."

Here's the statement: "We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don’t think it’s right the thing to do. While we do not have any immediate plans to take legal action against any specific employers, we look forward to engaging with policy makers and other stakeholders, to help better safeguard the privacy of our users."

Employers now demanding job seekers turn over their Facebook passwords, usernames

Not that Facebook is known for being great when it comes to privacy, but it's good to see them speaking out against this very creepy practice. What people write about to friends and family on Facebook is personal and private. Whatever information Facebook users put out there for public viewing is their own problem, but employers are hugely overstepping their authority when they ask for this.

First some background from AP:

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn't want to work for a company that would seek such personal information.

The Verge:

"If an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don't hire that person."

Thus, asking for passwords is a lose-lose situation for employers. And this is besides the fact that asking for someone's Facebook password is as ridiculous as asking someone to let you rifle through their email inbox. Additionally, anyone with your password has instant access to all of your friends' pictures, phone numbers, email addresses, and private messages, which turns the practice into an even bigger invasion of privacy.

Senator Richard Blumenthal is currently working on legislation to ban this practice.

Note from John: What a great way to find out the answers to all those illegal questions about your employees, such as whether they have kids, are pregnant, are gay (though I bet that's legal to ask), what their religion is, their politics.  Everyone of all political stripes should be concerned about this.