In the News: Reverse Location Search Warrant Leads Investigators to Google Location Users

In the News: Reverse Location Search Warrant Leads Investigators to Google Location Users

By Jason Cheung on February 12, 2019 | Tagged with , , , ,

Police Officers by markusspiske on Pixabay, used under CC0 1.0

Law enforcement agencies in Minnesota have been using reverse location search warrants to find the identities of smartphone owners that were at a crime scene. They accomplish this by issuing a warrant for Google to send the identity, billing and contact information, and web browsing history of all smartphones that reported that their Google Location was in the search area at the time of the crime.

Minnesota Public Radio News (MPRN) [1] reported that the police agencies in Minnesota have issues at least 22 warrants of this nature since August of 2018. Such reverse location search warrants may encompass a large area and specify data collection for a long period of time, potentially implicating a large number of innocent people passing by. An example was the case of the home invasion of a couple last October that lead to the loss of $50,000. A geofence was created in a large area around the house where the crime occurred, as well as around the two supermarkets that the couple owned. Police requested that Google identify all mobile devices around the house in a 6 hour window and around the supermarkets in a 30 hour window.

Map of Reverse Location Search of Eden Prarie home invasion by Tony Webster for MPR News

As a result, if police concludes that the “device’s location, movement, or timing established probable cause”, the identity, billing information, phone numbers, and two months’ of web browsing of all people that had smartphones reporting that they were located in the search areas around the time of the crime were available to law enforcement employees. Criticism has been raised against the practice because of the wide-reaching scope and method of the warrant applications. When police ask for approval of such reverse location search warrant applications, no visual map is given to the judge to compare the area of the crime and the proposed search area. Instead, only the coordinates [2] of the search area is given instead, drawing criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Most human beings can’t interpret large strings of numbers and GPS coordinates without a map to illustrate them, and judges are no exception” – Nathan Freed Wessler, American Civil Liberties Union

Any users of Google Location Services, including Android phone users and iOS users with Google Maps installed, could be implicated in the reverse search. Another criticism of this technique questions the accuracy of the GPS information transmitted by a smartphone, and whether it allows police to fish for evidence without, and in an effort to establish, a probable cause instead of providing the probable cause to proceed in the investigation of a citizen’s life.

“Our democracy is based on the idea that you can engage in private activity without the government monitoring your every move. It feels like what the government is doing here is violating the inherent trust that we have with our devices.” -Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation

What do you think?

  • Do you make use of the location services that Google or another service provides?
  • Are you aware of which applications on your smartphone has permissions to your geographic location?
  • What are your thoughts on a reverse location warrant and the backward search for suspects among a pool of innocent people?

Let us know what you think about this article and your responses to our questions in the comments below!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or financial advice.

Always do your own research to make informed decisions

For more information, check out these articles:

How did the police know you were near a crime scene? Google told them [MPRN]

Feds Order Google To Hand Over A Load Of Innocent Americans’ Locations [Forbes]

FBI asks Google to turn over data on all users who were close to robbery locations [ABA Journal]

Google Provides User Data to Police [Anarchimedia]

Read More | No Comments

In the News: YouTube updates algorithm to make extremist content harder to find

By elyse hill on February 5, 2019 | Tagged with , , , ,

From Flickr user Brick 101 under CC BY-NC 2.0

Recently, YouTube has been frequently criticized for leading viewers to content promoting disinformation, conspiracy theories, and radical thought through the site’s ‘Recommended for you’ and ‘Up next’ features, which suggest videos for users to watch. As reported by The Wall Street Journal in February 2018, YouTube’s algorithm for recommendations is responsible for more than 70% of videos viewed, making it the main determinant for what people end up watching when using the video streaming site [1]. In a recent Buzzfeed News report, it was also found that watching a nonpartisan video could lead a user to a video promoting extremist perspectives in a matter of just six recommendations, which automatically play after the searched video ends [2].

As with most Google products (YouTube’s parent company), the site’s algorithm that determines recommendations is intentionally opaque, making it unclear as to why radicalized videos are seemingly always within view. During a test of the platform, one journalist found that the search term ‘vegetarian’ would shortly present videos promoting veganism, while flu shot searches would quickly lead  to recommendations making anti-vaccination arguments [3]. These, of course, are tame examples; in many instances, viewers have been led to videos promoting political extremist ideologies, and conspiracy theories regarding major historical events (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust).

Regardless of your personal politics, YouTube seems to present the incendiary view as something you may be interested in. For many, YouTube often functions as a news, entertainment, and information source. Is it not the platform’s social responsibility to ensure disinformation, conspiracies, and extremist propaganda are not pushed upon unknowing viewers? This is particularly important, with consideration to the tool’s use by younger demographics [4]. Shouldn’t YouTube’s role in content recommendation for these users require moderation?

As a response to continued criticism, last week YouTube announced that the company would be modifying their algorithm so as to make conspiracy videos and ‘borderline’ content more difficult to find. While YouTube claims to regularly update their recommendations system, this update is said to focus on content that comes close to violating Community Guidelines without technically crossing the line. Videos presenting topics like miracle cures for serious illnesses, claiming the earth is flat, or making false statements about events like the 9/11 attacks will no longer be recommended, though they will still be accessible through the site. On their official blog, YouTube states, “[w]e think this change strikes a balance between maintaining a platform for free speech and living up to our responsibility to users” [5].

As the New York Times reports, YouTube did not clarify what would specifically qualify videos as ‘borderline,’ but maintains that the change will rely on both human intervention and machine learning [6]. There has been no announced date as to when this update will occur; instead, changes will gradually be made over time.

What do you think?

  • What should YouTube’s role be in moderating videos?
  • Have you ever been suggested an unexpected video while using the platform?
  • Do you think ‘borderline’ content should still be accessible?
  • What are your expectations of videos (and products) recommended for you?

Be sure to leave a comment in the discussion box below!

For more information, check out these articles:

YouTube says it will recommend fewer videos about conspiracy theories | The Verge  

YouTube updates recommendations algorithm to lessen the spread of ‘borderline’ content | Social Media Today

Read More | No Comments

In the News: Japanese Government to Test IoT Devices by Hacking

By Jason Cheung on January 29, 2019 | Tagged with , ,

Network IOT Internet of Things – by jeferrb on Pixabay, used under CC 1.0

The Japanese government amended a law [1] on January 25, 2019 that would allow internet-connected devices to be tested in a trial by fire, or in this case, trial by hacking. Specifically, they want to test the robustness of the default passwords and security set by various Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices, including smart doorbells, locks, lights, cameras, and televisions.

According to ZDNet [2], the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) of Japan will be allowed to use a list of default passwords and password dictionaries to attempt entry into Japanese consumer’s IoT devices. NICT aims to create a list of commonly insecure devices that use easy-to-guess passwords in order to alert its manufacturers and users to improve its security and unintended access.

The password audit is planned for February 2019, where over 200 million Japanese IoT devices will be tested on both enterprise and personal networks. The Japanese government cites fears of hacking at the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics as the reason for taking this step to increase its national cyber security.

Japanese citizens have expressed dissatisfaction, arguing that instead of a government attack on personal electronics, a simpler solution would be to alert users that had insecure devices to update them.

Interestingly enough, there are hackers that attempt to improve security through hacking. In April 2018, a hacker known as Alexey improved the security of over 100,000 routers by hacking into them and fixing a security vulnerability [3] as an act of good will. In the case of the Japanese government, the difference here is that it is a sovereign body that is mandating this audit, instead of one that is uninvited.

What do you think?

  • Should a government body be able to mandate that it is allowed to attempt to hack into your personal devices?
  • How can you be sure that surreptitious hacking attempts are not being made against your devices and networks?
  • Are you aware of the level of protection your router or other IoT devices have?

Let us know what you think about this article and your responses to our questions in the comments below!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or financial advice.

Always do your own research to make informed decisions.

For more information, check out these articles:

Govt. to access home devices in security survey [NHK Japan]

List of government mass surveillance projects [Wikipedia]

US Intelligence: We May Use IoT to Spy on You [Guardian]

Read More | No Comments

Movie Review: Paywall

By Monique Rodrigues on January 24, 2019 | Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Paywall: The Business of Scholarship

Digital Tattoo Rating: 3/5

1

2

3

4

5

It doesn’t worth the time

The trailer is enough

An informative movie

Would give it to a friend

A must see!

Summary

As a student, I would expect that you have been stopped by a paywall at least once while trying to access a paper. Every time this has happened to me, my reaction was a mix of frustration and anger. I have never given much thought to the dynamics of the scholarly publishing business, until I came across the documentary Paywall: The Business of Scholarship.

The film, released in September of 2018, does a good job of imploring viewers to reflect about those dynamics and about the consequences of paywalls to academic production. It presents a series of short interview clips bringing the perspectives of about 60 researchers, librarians, and other experts on the multi million dollar business of scientific publishing. As they explain in their website, “staying true to the open access model,” the movie is available to stream and download under a CC BY 4.0 license.

The director and producer is Jason Schmitt, a journalist and filmmaker, and a professor at Clarkson University’s Department of Communication and Media, in Potsdam, New York. I interviewed him by email last month to understand his motivations and to discuss the film. “We all possess unique tools to help the dissemination of knowledge, and I thought this could be a small way I could contribute to the open access movement,” he said. You can find more of this interview and our highlights from the movie below. But first, check out the trailer:

The Top 5

1. Profit Margins

Right in the beginning of the movie, we are invited to reflect on how high the profit margins for the industry are – they reach around 35 per cent according to some of the interviewees. In comparison, the wealth management industry makes around 21 per cent, according to Karla Cosgriff, director for Free the Science Electrochemical Society.

“How is it okay for this industry to be making this profit while there are no inputs that they have to pay for?” she asks. The business’ dynamics includes editors that usually work as volunteers and writers that don’t receive any money.

On the consumers side, it’s intriguing that the readers are not the ones who usually pay to access the journals. The money comes from the universities, which often makes consumers “price insensitive” according to Stuart Shieber, a computer science professor at Harvard University. Consequently, the readers, which are usually academics and students, don’t feel the need to protest the high prices.

2. Role of Elsevier

The documentary concentrates its heavy criticism on Elsevier, the biggest player in the academic publishing business. In the interview with Digital Tattoo, Schmitt said that he kept the focus on the company because he believes they are “the biggest player in the discrepancies to knowledge on planet earth” and they have “a market that is unfair and monopolistic.”

In the movie, one of the few positive comments about Elsevier comes from Will Schweitzer, director of product and custom publishing for AAAS/Science. “I think they do a lot of good for supporting innovation and kind of cross-industry initiatives,” he said. Additionally, Schweitzer believes the company’s licensing practices have evolved in the past years.

3. Influences on the Scientific Production

What intrigued me the most was the negative impact of this business model on academic production. For instance, many researchers, particularly in developing countries, have their efforts restricted by the high prices to access some journals.

“Many authors think that if they publish in a conventional journal […] they’re reaching everybody who cares about their work. That’s false. They’re reaching everybody who is lucky enough to work at an institution that’s wealthy enough to subscribe to that journal,” said Peter Super, director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication.

In addition, Brian Nosek, director of the Center for Open Society and professor at the University of Virginia, said that he met graduate students whose criteria to decide what to study wasn’t something that they were passionate about, but instead was a topic with an open literature.

4. Open Access as a Solution

The documentary provides a good space for exploring open access as a solution to the publishing model. It’s also presented as a way to democratize information and advance scientific knowledge. “The reason why we are having research is to try to solve problems in the world,” said Cable Green, director of open education for Creative Commons. To accomplish that, everybody has to have access, he argued.

To Digital Tattoo, Schmitt said that he believes we are very close to having open access as the default. For him, this model should be the standard. “Let’s allow high quality crowd curated glossy style content that has all the bells and whistles be the upgrade,” he said.

5. Cracking the Code

It’s clear from the movie that the system needs to change fast. Therefore, creative and bold solutions are very much needed. One example was the creation of the open journal Glossa by the Leiden University professor Joahna Rooryk. He was an editor for Elsevier’s Lingua when he decided it was time for change.

His innovation was to coordinate with the entire editorial board, so they all resigned and shifted together to Glossa. Subsequently, the new journal started with the same quality and credibility of the first one.

Final Thoughts

The documentary is very informative and makes us reflect on the importance of engaging in this discussion as consumers and producers of scientific knowledge. The current business model becomes particularly troubling if we think that the money for research frequently comes from public funds, but the products of this work are not publicly accessible.

However, it is important to have in mind that the movie can be interpreted as biased and activism-based. The film argues that Elsevier refused to answer their requests, but they could have given more space to people willing to explore the business’ improvements. Additionally, the documentary would be more balanced if the other players were also explored, such as Springer, Taylor & Francis and Wiley-Blackwell.

What do you think?

How do you see the scholarly publishing business as a student producing scientific knowledge? Have paywalls affected your studies somehow? Do you believe that we are close to have open access as the default system?

If you want to keep on exploring this topic, we have more resources for you! You can access our tutorials on Open Access and Open Learning.

Have you read any good books or watched any good movies related to digital identity? Are there any that you would like us to review? Join the conversation in the comments or on Facebook and Twitter!

Written by: Monique Rodrigues

Edited by: Elyse Hill

Read More | No Comments

Digital Identity Digest (December 2018)

By Monique Rodrigues on January 22, 2019 | Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Do the benefits of having a Facebook account outweigh the risks?

In December, Facebook hit the headlines once again for a privacy scandal. This time, they revealed that a Photo API bug gave some third-party apps too much access to the photos of up to 6.8 million users. According to their statement, developers might have had access to photos shared on Marketplace or Facebook Stories, and even to pictures uploaded but not posted. As TechCrunch reports, this failure “will further weaken confidence that Facebook is a responsible steward for our private data.”

The year was particularly tough for the tech giant. They went through multiple privacy scandals and business crisis, and subsequently lost a lot of trust. In an interview to CBC, the privacy advocate and Facebook critic Mark Weinstein said that the company has “everything” when it comes from information about the users. And they even have information about non-Facebook users, which is collected through friends who use the social media. 

It isn’t a surprise that both the New York Times and CNN published articles recently explaining how we can delete our Facebook profiles. Both of them highlight that the first thing to do is to assess any damages that this decision might cost, since many other services are integrated with Facebook. Additionally, the same New York Times published later an op-ed reflecting on how getting off the platform could be recasting a political issue as a willpower issue.

Before taking any permanent step, we recommend reading our blog post about the relationship between social media and its users. In addition, take a look at our suggestion of data detox for 2019. One of the challenges we propose is to clean connected apps on Facebook.

Is a digital diploma safer than a traditional one?

Image Graduation Cap_By_McElspeth Under CC0 1.0

CBC reports that the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT), in Calgary, is the first Canadian post-secondary institution to issue blockchain-secured credentials. More than speeding processes, the new tool avoids frauds according to the institution. “Blockchain is a technology that functions as a public, distributed and unchangeable ledger,” said Daniel Duffy, SAIT’s chief information officer. Some institutions around the world are working to develop blockchain certificates, however only a few have managed to implement it so far. For instance, MIT started a pilot program in 2017, when 111 graduates were granted the option to receive their diplomas via an app. The technology, derived from cryptocurrency, includes encrypted and unalterable information that is only accessible with a public and private key. Also that year, Forbes suggested blockchain as a possible solution to China’s widespread problem with fake diplomas.

Blockchain has been framed as a game-changing technology, but there are still a lot of questions around its application to different fields. Back in 2016, Hack Education published an article about the implications of this technology to education, and their reflections are still very current. Are we ready to handle the complexities of this technology as teachers, students and educational institutions? Do we really want to keep unalterable educational records? Who owns education data? What problem would be created with this technology?

What do you think? Should universities replace printed diplomas for digital ones? Share your thoughts with us on the comment box below.

And stay tuned! We’ll publish a new blog post soon to talk more about this technology.

Are we being anonymously followed?

Image Navigation_By_TeroVesalainen Under CC0 1.0

A New York Times investigation found that apps are tracking people’s location information and selling the data to companies without users’ knowledge. These companies are “advertisers, retail outlets and even hedge funds seeking insights into consumer behavior,” the articles highlights. They say the information is anonymous and that they are only interested in people’s patterns, but the data is so precise that it can reveal very intimate details. Many location companies justify that users have agreed with privacy policies that give broad permissions, but the newspaper’s investigation found that many of these policies are incomplete and misleading. If this sounds disturbing to you, another New York Times article goes deeper into how users can limit apps from tracking their location.

Recently, we talked on our blog about other tradeoffs of having geolocation services on our smartphones: last August, an Associated Press investigation revealed that Google was tracking smartphones that had the location services disabled. You can engage in this conversation with us by accessing our tutorial page on geotagging.

Read our most recent blog posts: 

What’s happening in January: 

Lecture – Examining Engineers’ and Users’ Beliefs, with Nick Merrill

When? Jan. 23, 12 pm (PST)

Where? UBC Point Grey Campus – Forestry Building, DFP Classroom (Room 2300), 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C. 

Lecture – Misinformation and Freedom of Expression

When? Jan. 23, from 12:30 pm to 2 pm (EST)

Where? U of T St. George (Downtown) Campus – Centre for Ethics, Room 200, Larkin Building, Toronto, Ont. 

Lecture – Risk, Intersectional Inequalities and Racial Proxies: How Is Machine Learning and Big Data Shaping Legal and Criminal Justice Analysis of “Risk”?

When? Jan. 29, from 4 pm to 6 pm (EST)

Where? U of T St. George (Downtown) Campus – Centre for Ethics, Room 200, Larkin Building, Toronto, Ont.

Lecture – Safiya Umoja Noble “Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism”

When? Jan. 29, from 4 pm to 6 pm (EST)

Where? U of T St. George (Downtown) Campus – Jackman Humanities Institute, Room JHA 100A, 170 Saint George Street, Toronto, Ont.

Written by: Monique Rodrigues

Edited by: Elyse Hill

Read More | No Comments

Declutter Your Data 2019

By elyse hill on January 17, 2019 | Tagged with , , , , , ,

Happy 2019!

The beginning of a new year is a great time to check in with our daily practices and work on forming new healthy habits. Last year, members of Digital Tattoo took part in Mozilla’s Data Detox challenge, where we were given eight daily tasks to help us clean up our digital lives. You can read about our team members’ experiences here! 

Inspired by Mozilla’s continual efforts to help clean up your digital life, the Digital Tattoo team has created our own set of daily resolutions to help purge unwanted digital clutter in time for the start of a new year. Follow this eight day plan to start your year off with good digital hygiene. Through each of the eight recommendations, you can improve your sense of awareness of the components and accounts that make up your digital self. These first steps can help you take inventory of your online accounts and improve the management of your online identity.

Be sure to visit Mozilla’s Data Detox website to learn even more ways to take control of your online presence.

Day 1 – Get Off Unwanted Mailing Lists

Email services weed out a lot of spam, but you probably still get dozens of promotional messages and newsletters every day. Gmail helps by moving promotions and updates into separate views.If you don’t have this feature, click the cogwheel icon and select “Configure inbox.”

For a quieter life and cleaner inbox, it’s best to get off those mailing lists altogether. A free service called Unroll Me can help. Visit the website and your inbox will be scanned for promotional emails. You’ll then see a breakdown of all the mailing lists you’re on, with the option to unsubscribe with a single click. To cancel more than five lists, you have to post a link to Unroll Me on Facebook or Twitter, but it’s a small price to pay (and you can always delete it afterwards). As always, be sure to read the Terms and Agreements before using this service.

Day 2 – Check Connected Apps on Facebook

Facebook apps are another privacy concern – plus they can pester you with annoying notifications. To review which apps you have installed, open Facebook in a desktop browser, click the dropdown arrow at the top right of the window and select “Settings”. Then, in the page that opens, click “Apps and websites” in the left-hand panel. You’ll now see all your connected apps; click on one to see what personal information they can access, and to choose whether or not each one can send you notifications.

Click the “X” next to an app’s icon to remove it from your Facebook profile. Tweeters can similarly check which apps are connected to their Twitter account: open your Twitter timeline in a desktop browser, then click your user icon in the top right.Select Settings and Privacy, then click Apps in the left-hand column. 

Day 3 – Check If Your Online Accounts Have Been Compromised

In 2018 alone, 8% of the world was affected by data breaches, glitches and cases of internal data abuse. This affected well-known companies that may possess your information, including Marriott Hotels, Equifax, Facebook, Uber, among others. It is important to check the status of the companies that store critical information about you, such as investment companies, airlines, hotels, and online stores. Information like your social security number, passport number, credit card number, name, address, and e-mail may be necessary information to receive service, but it is critically important to regularly check if the status of any of these companies have been compromised.

Here are a few websites that search sources of data breaches – including Pastebin, individual leakers, and the dark web – and tells you if your accounts have been compromised [1]. Pastebin is a website that has gained notoriety as being a favoured tool for hackers to share leaked passwords and account details [2].

Have I Been Pwned?
BreachAlarm
Hacked E-mails
Have I Been Sold?

Day 4 – Delete Compromised / Unused Accounts

Over the years, you have probably signed up with dozens of online services that you no longer use. It’s a good idea to close these accounts; not only will this ensure that you don’t get hit with unexpected fees or marketing messages, it will also reduce the risk of your personal information being leaked in the future.

Deleting dozens of old accounts individually can be a chore, however. Account Killer is a free service that can help you quit hundreds of popular services with a few clicks. Simply type in the name of a website – or browse the complete list provided – and you’ll see a colour-coded button. For “white-listed” services, Account Killer provides a link directly to the relevant deletion page. “Black-listed” accounts don’t provide an easy removal option, but Account Killer will provide an email address which you can contact to request deletion.

Day 5 – Change Your Passwords on Remaining Accounts

After you have reduced or simplified your list of online accounts, you now have an inventory of the websites and companies that constitute your digital identity. Today, we recommend going through your digital identity inventory and changing your passwords for each account. Never use the same password for more than one account. The best practice is to keep your passwords separated and offline. However, don’t put all your eggs in one basket and store your passwords in an easy to reach place, such as an unlocked drawer. Be sure to keep each password in a safe and secure location.

Choosing new passwords for your accounts may be a mentally taxing activity.However, manually choosing a different password for each account increases the security of your digital identity overall, as intruders may only gain partial access to your information. When creating a new password, keep in mind the following best practices:

  1.   Use at least 10 characters
  2.   Include spaces if allowed
  3.   Include special characters like ASCII or Unicode if allowed
  4.   Avoid using properly spelled words
  5.   Combine letters, numbers, and symbols to create passphrases (e.g. D1g!t@l_ta2)

Day 6 – Audit Permissions on your Mobile

Even if there’s plenty of space free on your smartphone, it’s a good idea to keep an eye on which apps can access your personal information, or do costly things such as make phone calls or send text messages. On iOS you can easily check which apps have access to what under Settings > Privacy. To audit the permissions used by a specific app, open Settings, scroll down and tap on its name [3].

Android users can go to Settings > Apps, then tap the cogwheel icon to access App Permissions. Here you’ll see a breakdown of permission types – such as Calendar, Camera, Contacts and so forth. Tap on any one to see which apps have access to those permissions; you can revoke permissions by tapping the switch next to an app’s name [4]. For more information on web tracking on your mobile and browsing enabled devices, check out our tutorial content.

Day 7 – Disable Push Notifications on Remaining Apps

Push notifications are alerts for a application sent to the home screen of your smartphone. These may appear as a banner on the top of your screen, bubbles on the corner of an app’s icon, or as pop-ups on your lock screen. A study in 2016 by Kim et al. analyzed the effects of the visual and auditory alerts generated by push notifications on subjects that were at risk of smartphone addiction. They tested if push notifications impacted the performance of participants during a task. They discovered that these alerts affected task performance for all individuals, regardless of risk of smartphone addiction. However, push notifications had additional effects on individuals at risk of smartphone addiction, causing decreased ability “even during subsequent task performance” (Kim et al., 2016).

As a result, on this day of the declutter challenge, we recommend that you turn off and disable push notifications for most, if not all of your apps. This way, you can check for notifications when you choose to, instead of when alerts tell you to. For other ways to stay tranquil in your digital life, check out our tutorial content. 

Android 8:

In Android 8, notifications are organized by categories, so you are able to turn off push notifications for each type of alert for each application. However, this makes customizing alerts a time-consuming process.

Settings > Notifications > App > Categories (select one) > Off

iOS 12:

Similarly, iOS provides users with the ability to customize their notifications for individual applications. Alerts come in the form of banners, badges, and in the lock screen.

Settings > Notifications > App > Turn Everything Off

Day 8 – Audit the Content on Remaining Accounts

On the last day of decluttering, it’s time to take a deep dive into each of the remaining online accounts that you possess. Going through the older content of your social media, forum postings, and even shopping accounts can give yourself the opportunity to reflect on previous behaviour, and remove information that may leave you vulnerable.

Congratulations! Now that you have taken an inventory of the accounts that make up your online profile, we hope that it is now easier to manage and keep track of your digital identity. Let us know how this detox went for you, the challenges you may have encountered, or any surprising results you may have found in the discussion box below!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or financial advice.

Always do your own research for informed decisions.

Written by: Jason Chung and Elyse Hill

Edited by: Defne Inceoglu

Read More | No Comments

In the News: Google’s Knowledge Graph can be used to misinform

By Jason Cheung on January 15, 2019 | Tagged with , ,

An example of Google’s Knowledge Graph and Featured Snippet technology.

Have you used Google to answer a question, to find that the answer appears in a big box on the right hand side of the search results? This is Google’s Knowledge Graph technology, which stores the ‘answers’ to common questions within a structured database that organizes information on websites in a standardized way [1]. It is differentiated with Google’s Featured Snippet technology, which presents a ‘programmatically extracted’ answer from a website [2]. Knowledge Graph began as Freebase [3], a collaborative project where volunteers would contribute to the structured data of various sites and concepts, and was available under a Creative Commons license for free, until Google shut the project down after buying its parent company, Metaweb, in 2010 [4].

Knowledge Graph can present the answers stored within the structured database to users in the search results screen, so that users would not have to visit another site to discover the answer of a query. However, the introduction of this tool has received criticism, as it has been attributed to a declining rate of visitors to other websites that provide information, such as Wikipedia [5].

Last week, ZDNet [6] reported that Wietze Beukema, a Dutch researcher of Price Waterhouse Coopers’ Cyber Threat Detection & Response team, discovered that these knowledge graph answers can be attached to any search query, even if the knowledge graph does not answer the query in any way. If users clicked on the ‘Share’ button within a knowledge graph panel, they could get the URL for the specific knowledge graph panel. Afterwards, they could combine this URL for a knowledge graph panel with a search query to make it seem that the knowledge graph panel is appearing for that specific search query.

Here are some examples: [7] [8] [9]

As a result, misinformation can be created by users that promote URLs that combine a suggestive and leading search query with the juxtaposition of a knowledge graph panel to make it seem like the panel was displayed as a result of the search query.

Update: The issue has been addressed by Google, and the links no longer show inaccurate information by appending the knowledge graph URL to another search URL anymore.

What do you think?

  • Do you think this will lead to the increased spread of misinformation, or will people check facts for themselves?
  • Does Google need to address this issue, or is it a good opportunity to play a harmless prank on your friends?
  • Even if this issue does not exist, do you trust the information provided by Google’s Knowledge Graph and Featured Snippets? Why or why not?
  • Do you think Google is right to display the information of other websites on its search results? Do you think it is overstepping its boundaries as a search engine?

Let us know what you think about this article and your responses to our questions in the comments below!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or financial advice.

Always do your own research to make informed decisions.

For more information, check out these articles:

Google search results listings can be manipulated for propaganda [ZDNet]

Freebase is dead, long live Freebase [Medium]

OK Google, What Is Your Ontology? [arXiv]

Google buys Metaweb and its sprawling database [CNet]

Read More | No Comments

In the News: Canada’s Auditor General reports ‘no plan’ to connect the digital divide

By elyse hill on December 18, 2018 | Tagged with , , ,

Though many perceive the ability to be online as a basic necessity, several rural communities across Canada still find themselves without access to high-speed connection. Many of these disconnected areas are Indigenous communities that already experience a disproportionate lack of vital resources, such as the absence of clean water or all-weather roads in the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation [1]. For some, the need for online access has led to the student development of their own community internet infrastructure. For others, in order to stay connected and access online resources, it means traveling to the nearest urban space. Although a Digital Tattoo guest blogger recently examined the attempts made to bridge the digital divide in British Columbia, a report from the Office of the Auditor General was released at the end of November detailing the lack of current measures or future plans to connect Canada’s rural and remote areas.

In this report, which functioned as a performance audit, the following assessments were made:

This is significant, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Shoal Lake 40 First Nation just two years ago, pledging to close their digital divide, though no measurable actions have since been taken. As the Auditor General’s report notes, “access to reliable and high-quality Internet services enables Canadians to participate in the 21st-century economy and have better access to health care and education” [2], and provides Canadians with access to critical information and services that may not be otherwise available to them.

Six recommendations were provided within the report, including guidance for funding programs, and the need to notify stakeholders of the date and location of planned availability [2]. The Innovation, Science, and Economic Department Canada – which is the Federal Institution responsible for carrying out these actions – have agreed to implement the recommendations.

What are your thoughts on the Canadian government’s inaction on the digital divide? Be sure to leave a comment in the discussion box below.

For more information, check out these articles:

Auditor General criticizes Ottawa’s efforts to bring high-speed internet to rural Canadians | The Chronicle Herald

Canada Has ‘No Plan’ to Bring Broadband to Rural and Remote Communities, Watchdog Says | Motherboard

ISED called out for having ‘no plan’ for much needed remote & rural connectivity | Open Media

 

Read More | No Comments

In the News: Screen Composers Guild of Canada Proposes ‘Copyright Tax’ On Internet Use

By Jason Cheung on December 11, 2018 | Tagged with , , , , ,

Enrollment for taxation mosaic at Chora – by Meister der Kahriye-Cami-Kirche in The Yorck Project (2002), from Wikipedia, used under CC 1.0

A proposal by the Screen Composers Guild of Canada (SCGC) to The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, released on September 25, 2018, aims to introduce a ‘copyright tax’ on Internet use, according to the documents released by TorrentFreak [1] In the report [2], the SCGC proposed a tax collected by internet service providers “that is inspired by the blank-media levy”. Wikipedia explains that blank-media levies are special taxes added on top of the purchase of recordable media, such as blank CDs and DVDs [3].

Currently, in Canada, the private copying levies are $0.29 per CD-R. CD-RW, CD-R Audio, or CD-RW Audio [4]. Of this levy:

  • 58.2% is distributed to the Society of
    Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
    (SOCAN), the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights
    Agency (CMRRA) and the Society for Reproduction
    Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada
    (SODRAC)
  • 23.8% to Re:Sound Music Licensing Company performers
  • 18% to Re:Sound Music Licensing Company makers

According to the SCGC proposal, internet users would be allotted 15GB of unrelieved data per month. The SCGC states this allowance should enable “ample room for email, commerce and downloading, but beyond that, a copyright levy could be collected and re-mitted to a collective for distribution to copyright holders”. The Screen Composers Guild of Canada argue that compared to ‘terrestrial’, or traditional forms of media distribution for screen compositions (such as the music in TV shows), royalties from internet distribution  “are 50 to 95% lower when compared to those from terrestrial broadcasters”. As a result, under this proposition, users who use more than 15GB of data per month, for whatever purpose, are subject to a levy for the potential of over-using copyrighted material that may contain screen compositions. An example of how this arrangement can impact internet users who are not media consumers is for server hosts, who require a constant internet connection to maintain uptime for their clients.

“[W]hen you’re downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you’re likely streaming Spotify. You’re likely streaming YouTube. You’re likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They’re forcing us to.”

– SCGC quote from TorrentFreak

What do you think?

  • Is a tax collected for internet use of any kind a reasonable way to provide content creators with performance royalties?
  • Does the ‘blank-media’ model of royalty payments translate well for the format of ‘blank’ or ‘unused’ broadband data?
  • Do you agree that internet distribution services are less capable of dividing royalty payments to creators?
  • What do you think of a cap of 15GB of untaxed internet use per month?

Let us know what you think about this article and your responses to our questions in the comments below!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or financial advice.

Always do your own research to make informed decisions.

Image Credits

Enrollment for taxation mosaic at Chora – by Meister der Kahriye-Cami-Kirche in The Yorck Project (2002), from Wikipedia, used under CC 1.0

Sources / Articles You May Find Useful

Screen Composer’s Guild of Canada – https://screencomposers.ca/

Canadian Private Copying Collective – http://www.cpcc.ca/en/

Copyright Board of Canada – https://cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html

Copyright Board of Canada – Tariff of Levies to Be Collected by CPCC in 2017

TorrentFreak Article – https://torrentfreak.com/canadian-music-group-proposes-copyright-tax-on-internet-use-181006/

SCGC – COPYRIGHT IN THE 21ST CENTURY FOR THE CANADIAN SCREEN-COMPOSER Remuneration Models for Artists and Creative Industries (via TorrentFreak)

 

 

Read More | No Comments

Book Review: Shareveillance

By victoria mcauley on December 10, 2018 | Tagged with , , , ,

Shareveillance: The Dangers of Openly Sharing and Covertly Collecting Data

Clare Birchall (2017)

Digital Tattoo Rating: 2/5

Summary

What does it mean to share in the Digital Age? In her book Shareveillance: The Dangers of Openly Sharing and Covertly Collecting Data, Clare Birchall investigates the intricacies of digital sharing on personal and state levels, and attempts to find out who is benefitting from all of our collective data.

 

The Top 5

 

1. What is -veillance? (Chapter 1)

Birchall is a Critical Theory scholar who posits that contemporary ‘sharing culture’ is enabling surveillance. This book focuses on the idea that by posting our data on social media sites, and by having our information collected by data professionals, we are becoming a society of aggregate data points instead of individuals. This in itself is not what bothers Birchall, instead, the trouble is in the inequity between the data that we make available, and the data that is made available to us. “Government practices that share data with citizens involve veillance because they call on citizens to monitor and act on that data – we are envisioned (watched and hailed) as auditing and entrepreneurial subjects” (Birchall, Chapter 1*). Shareveillance is the state in which the government is able to aggregate and use our data, without having to share data in return. Indeed, Birchall goes so far as to theorize that the small amount of data provided to us by the government is purposely made public, not for public good, but as incentive for the public to give-up even more of their data.  Confused? So was I. Let’s break these concepts down a bit.

 

2. Data (Chapter 2)

The trouble with data is that it isn’t neutral. We like to think that it is, but an entity’s access to data can contribute to their agency. For example, if one country has access to the polio vaccine, and another country doesn’t, the country that can eradicate polio has an advantage over the country that can’t. The same can be said on an individual level. Someone with access to data may inherently have an advantage over someone who does not. By giving governments and organizations access to all of the public’s data, while receiving little in return, we are giving them an advantage over us.

 

3. Open & Closed Data (Chapter 5)

Open data is data that had been made available for public use. Examples of open data include the City of Toronto’s Annual Energy Consumption Report  (via the City of Toronto’s Open Data Catalogue), and Graffiti Site Data(via the City of Vancouver’s Open Data Catalogue).

Closed data is data that has not been made available for public use. Examples of closed data include security files, defence strategies, etc. When a hacker or whistle-blower like Edward Snowden releases ‘government secrets’, they are releasing closed data to the public. The difference between open and closed data is significant, because it signals what information we, as a public, have access to. The information that we have access to directly impacts the political agency that we have.

Birchall explains that while we like to think of open data practices as ‘good’, and closed data practices as ‘bad’, even open government data is not neutral. Birchall’s book explores the ways in which open data provided by government organizations can be used as a lure for individuals to give up more of their own data, and how challenging it can be to make sense of the massive quality of poorly organized data made available to publics. Neutrality and accessibility are not guarantees in open data practices.

 

4. Citizens as Data (Chapters 3 & 4)

Birchall is skeptical of hyper-connectivity and current government open-data practices.  The concern is that through data-professionals’ ability to aggregate and profit from our data, our value as citizens is not in our ability to meaningfully contribute to democracy, but instead our ability to contribute to data sets. Birchall worries that by reducing the public to data sources, the public will, in turn, lose its political agency. This is further complicated by failings of the open and closed data system in which data is withheld from the public, or made available in ways that are not neutral or accessible.

 

5. So, What Now? (Chapter 6)

How do we get out of the trap of becoming non-agent citizens for overly surveillant capitalist governments and organizations? Well, the short answer is that we have to take it one step at a time. Birchall suggests supporting hacking, whistle-blowing, and open-data initiatives. On a smaller scale, Birchall focuses on the importance of grassroots movements (like U of Ts Guerrilla Archiving event), and the significance of informed choices by an educated public. Try out de-centralized storage for your files, using encryption technology, and ensuring your right to opacity by using services that limit how much of your data is shared. By making small changes, and keeping aware, you can “cut” into the system of shareveillance and ensure equitable access to information, as well as the right to keep your information opaque.

 

Conclusions

While this book was a very interesting read, it was really dense. Birchall rushed through topics in the interest of keeping the book short (86 pages), but sacrificed accessibility. While the information in this book could be a wonderful tool for young adults who are digitally and politically engaged, the barrier to entry makes this book relatively inaccessible for the average undergraduate student. Further, the examples given are specifically for professors and long-time scholars. While writing a book by scholars, for scholars is not inherently negative (and I recognize that the goal of the book was not to cater to young adults), I feel that making a longer, more accessible version of this book would be of great benefit to scholars, students, and young adults alike.

*This book was read as a digital copy and therefore did not have accurate page numbers. This review will use chapter numbers for citation purposes.

 

Have you read any good books about digital identity? Are there any that you would like us to review? Join the conversation in the comments or on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram!

Read More | No Comments

Our Podcast…

The Digital Tattoo Project Podcast raises questions, shares stories, speaks with experts and encourages us to consider our digital lives.

Listen to us on iTunes or Soundcloud

Twitter