The Global Privacy Enforcement Network (Gpen) looked at 1,211 apps and found 85% were not clearly explaining what data was being collected, and for what reason. Almost one in three apps were requesting an excessive amount of personal information, the report said.

BBC News - Most apps are ‘failing on privacy’, claims report

What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” says Goldsmith. “Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that’s listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don’t really know whose they are.

Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls | Popular Science

In today’s increasingly connected world, it is critical that every phone company honor its duty to inform customers of their privacy choices and then to respect those choices,” Travis LeBlanc, acting head of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, said in a statement. “It is plainly unacceptable for any phone company to use its customers’ personal information for thousands of marketing campaigns without even giving them the choice to opt out.

Verizon to pay $7M over privacy violations | TheHill

A study from AVAST published Wednesday found one in five men and one in four women admit to checking their partners’ smartphones without their consent. Surveying 13,132 respondents in the U.S., AVAST said a quarter of married women who did check their spouses’ phones did so out of suspicions of infidelity. However, most women did so “because they are nosey,” the company said.

Your Significant Other Is Probably Snooping On Your Smartphone (via fastcompany)

(via fastcompany)

The most common way teens find privacy is not by restricting access to content, but by restricting access to meaning. They encode what they’re posting using in-jokes, song lyrics, pronouns, and references that outsiders won’t recognize.

How Kids Find Online Privacy - Reason.com

The cameras scan at an extremely high rate, usually around 60 plates per second. Law enforcement policies vary widely concerning how long that information can be retained. Different agencies keep that data anywhere from a few weeks to indefinitely. Some cities have even mounted such cameras at their city borders, monitoring who comes in and out. Various jurisdictions disagree about whether individuals can access their own LPR records, much less a broader dataset.

Los Angeles cops do not need to hand over license plate reader data, judge finds | Ars Technica

For the first time ever Google is now processing an average of one million removal requests per day. The new record follows an upward trend with copyright holders reporting more and more allegedly infringing search results in an effort to deter piracy.

Google Asked to Remove 1 Million Pirate Links Per Day | TorrentFreak

Veracity aside, the whole debate is a good reminder of what most what most of us cheerfully Snapchatting, Instagramming fools conveniently forget: Our phones store metadata with every photo we take. Unless you spend a lot more energy than most people finding tools that scrub your files, EXIF data on every selfie includes the GPS coordinates of your photos, the time they were taken, and enough other information that makes it easy to track down personalized details about you. Even if there’s no embedded EXIF data, if a photo’s location is placed on a map, software can scrape those locations and associate them with the images. The impact this has on our privacy is profound. Programmer and artist Owen Mundy recently visualized these kinds of privacy issues in his project, I Know Where Your Cat Lives. Using publicly available photos from people’s feeds, he locates photos of cats on a global map, with an estimated error margin of 7.8 meters. “I have a daughter and had been posting pictures of her on Instagram,” Mundy told Vice. “Then I realized Instagram had created a map of every picture I had been sharing with the world. That scared me.”

In Metadata We Trust, Minus The Margins Of Error | Popular Science

“I’ve had patients ask me, ‘Where’s your baby board?’ ” said Dr. Mark V. Sauer, the director of the office, which is affiliated with Columbia University Medical Center. “We just tell them the truth, which is that we no longer post them because of concerns over privacy.” For generations, obstetricians and midwives across America have proudly posted photographs of the babies they have delivered on their office walls. But this pre-digital form of social media is gradually going the way of cigars in the waiting room, because of the federal patient privacy law known as Hipaa. Under the law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, baby photos are a type of protected health information, no less than a medical chart, birth date or Social Security number, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Even if a parent sends in the photo, it is considered private unless the parent also sends written authorization for its posting, which almost no one does.

Baby Pictures at Doctor’s? Cute, Sure, but Illegal - NYTimes.com

Pretty much everything you do on the Internet these days is a potential data set. And data has value. The posts you like on Facebook, your spending habits as tracked by Mint, the searches you make on Google – the argument goes that the social, economic and academic potential of sharing these immensely detailed so-called “high dimensional” data sets with third parties is too great to ignore. If that’s the case, you better hope there’s a pretty surefire way to scrub data sets of our personal information before release. Cavoukian and Castro worry that we’ll be so scared off by incidents where data has been poorly de-identified – and mistake those scenarios for examples of why de-identification doesn’t work – that we’ll decide not to share our data at all.

Sticky data: Why even ‘anonymized’ information can still identify you - The Globe and Mail