On-line Privacy Concerns Grow

[Lamplighter]

A lot of people have confiscated my name, even before I was born !

It seemed to be a pretty good search on public (real estate, birth, etc.) records.
It did turn up some, but not all, of my references in the scientific literature,
but a Google search can be much more complete.

Here is a web site I use with prospective tenants for a free criminal background check.
This too is not always up to date or complete, but the price is right.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Pipl's info was 95% wrong. Mostly about a former governor of the Bank of Scotland, and a NJ football player.

[Clodfobble]

The criminal searches site is legit and very informative. But be careful searching in it for fun. You might accidentally learn things about some friends that you never wanted to know.

[classicman]

FWIW... YMMV...
THAT particular site did not have any info of value on a couple individuals I KNOW for a fact have records in a particular state. To confirm, I went to the state site and the information is still on the state site.

[Lamplighter]

Well Classic, you sort of got your money's worth.

Seriously, if it's a negative search it doesn't mean anything.
But if it does yield something on a prospective tenant it is worthwhile, without having spent $ on a formal check.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

A lot of people have confiscated my name, even before I was born !

Maybe so, but I bet if I was a prospective employer I could find enough about you that you may or may not have wanted to share. Well maybe not for someone of your age, but for a younger more connected person the issue may be larger.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe so, but I bet if I was a prospective employer I could find enough about you that you may or may not have wanted to share. Well maybe not for someone of your age, but for a younger more connected person the issue may be larger.

"younger" "more connected" ??? I almost feel hurt

But you're probably right.
I keep after our G-kids about what all they put up on FaceBook, etc.

Also, it's the credit score that is important...
a al insurance rates, loans, etc.
It shouldn't be that way, but how can you fight it.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Check out how much info there is on yourself on the web already. And this is the tip of the iceberg. Look yourself up in pipl.com. Scary shit.

HA! I object! I have never had Somersize Desserts on my pulblic Amazon wish list!


[cue blond impression]

I don't remember anyway. If I did, it is scary! Do you know how many desserts are listed? I could be a blimp right now.

[TheMercenary]

[Lamplighter]

TechNewsWorld
Facebook Drops Another 'P' Bomb

Facebook dropped a privacy bombshell on an unsuspecting
user base before the start of the holiday weekend: Going forward,
it will make a user's address and mobile phone number accessible
as part of the User Graph object.
That means that users' addresses and mobile numbers
are now available to third party developers of such apps as, say, FarmVille.

<snip>
Just ignore the final naivite:

It also pointed out that these permissions only provide access
to a user's address and mobile phone number
-- not to friends' addresses or mobile phone numbers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Zuckerberg's Yellow Pages.

[Lamplighter]

On again, off again... FB promises On again... Soon

CNN News
January 18, 2011 9:11 AM PST
Facebook backtracks on apps grabbing address, cell number
by Lance Whitney

Facebook is temporarily putting the kibosh on a new tweak
that gave apps the ability to capture someone's cell number and address.
Pushed through on Friday, the new change expanded on the information
already available to third-party app developers based on a user's permissions.

[/SPIN On]

In a blog post late yesterday, Facebook said it had received useful "feedback" from users
over the weekend on ways to make the process more transparent. As a result,
the company has temporarily taken the feature offline with the goal of refining it
to help people understand that they're intentionally choosing to share such information.

Facebook is promising that an improved version will find its way back online in the next few weeks.

[/SPIN Off]

[Lamplighter]

I've already been pilfered by FaceBook.

Prior to the "new profile version" of FB, I had all of my personal data restricted to viewing only by My Friends.
Over the weekend my profile was automatically converted into FB's new version.
The settings on new fields were applied at the default "everyone" level.
As soon as I saw it, I erased all of my data and again went back through the settings to restrict viewing, location, etc.

This morning I opened FB and I see "personalized" ads for services to the "senior citizens" of Oregon:
for the Peace Corp in Portland, for Natural Awakenings, for long-term care insurance,
for nursing homes, and for a local funeral business.
Even after restricting the settings, the ads change each time I go back into my Profile.

Geeeeezzzzz. FB already has the rest of my life planned out for me

[Lamplighter]

Google continues to please me...

NY Times
Google and Mozilla Announce New Privacy Features
By TANZINA VEGA
January 24, 2011, 12:52 pm

Add two more Internet browser makers to the list of companies planning
to offer Web users new ways to control how their personal data is collected online.

On Monday, Mozilla and Google announced features that would allow users of the
Firefox and Chrome browsers to opt out of being tracked online
by third-party advertisers.

This approach is consistent with the current direction of the FTC,
but relies on the integrity of the 3rd-party companies.
Some teeth in FTC regulations would probably be appropriate and essential.

The companies made their announcements just weeks after the Federal Trade Commission
issued a report that supported a “do not track” mechanism that would let consumers choose
whether companies could monitor their online behavior.

In a blog post by Alex Fowler, Mozilla’s technology and privacy officer,
the company unveiled a proposed feature for its Firefox browser that would
send a signal to third-party advertisers and commercial Web sites indicating
that a user did not want to be tracked.
The mechanism, being called a Do Not Track HTTP header,
would rely on companies that receive the information to agree not to collect data.

Microsoft expects users to know of and black-list each specific site.

The approach differs from other options currently available to users that rely on cookies or user-generated lists.
In December, Microsoft announced a feature called Tracking Protection for
Internet Explorer 9 that would rely on lists that users create
that indicate which sites they do not want to share information with.

[OnyxCougar]

Thought this may be an appropriate place to put this.