Tag Archives: privacy laws

Under Code, Apps Would Disclose Collection of Data – NYTimes.com

Under Code, Apps Would Disclose Collection of Data – NYTimes.com.

I do not believe the disclosure of consumer information collected by mobile applications to provide mobile app transparency should be the only disclosure channel of consumer data collected.  I think that all of the web browsers should have an option to see, for the current web site, or application, the chart, or similar as mentioned in the NYT article, which is similar to nutrition details of food from the FDA.  That would allow for a majority of the disclosure, and would satisfy the consumer lobby groups.

Consumer collected data from all electronic sources should be disclosed in a simple manner similar to the ingredients label from the FDA.


China’s Baidu Digital Eyewear Targeted Solely for Government

China’s Baidu developing digital eyewear similar to Google Glass | Reuters.

Three paragraphs are extremely interesting, and imply military applications as well as policing their own people.

Kuo said the device will be mounted on a headset with a small LCD screen and will allow users to make image and voice searches as well as conduct facial recognition matches.


“What you are doing with your camera, for example, taking a picture of a celebrity and then checking on our database to see if we have a facial image match, you could do the same thing with a wearable visual device,” Kuo said.


We haven’t decided whether it is going to be released in any commercial form right now, but we experiment with every kind of technology that is related to search,” Kuo said. Kuo declined to comment on the other functions of the Baidu Eye or whether Baidu is working on other forms of wearable technology.

It implyies that targeted people who are targeted for ‘crimes’ such as civil disobedience, may be tracked in a database.  The last paragraph implies that the technology may be targeted for the ‘public’ / government sector use.  In addition, all governments may use this technologies at their borders easier recognition of targeted individuals.  I could also visualize other highly policed states, where terrorism is very active, to provide these glasses to transportation gatekeepers, such as bus drivers, or train conductor, where at the point of collecting tickets, they may be able to perform retinal recognition, and allow the collection of fees, depending on the accuracy of the technology, as well as identify them for any outstanding warrents for arrest.  A person may board a bus, and by identifying the person through facial, retinal, and/or voice recognition, if cleared a security check, the bus driver may ask automatically, would you like this fare deducted from your linked checking, or which credit card, ending in the last for digits.

This technology might eventually be mandated by the states within the EU.  That’s a thought, as well as the requirements to connect each border check to cross reference with Interpol, the World Health Organization (WHO) for the spread of possible infectious disease control, as well as local government warrents.

Brave New World.

Privacy, Eye Movement Technology, Twitter and Advertising

As I was reading my stream of tweets my brain started to wander and think about that new eye movement technology Samsung, and LG are/will utilize to change smartphone screens with your eye movements.  As I looked at words in the tweets, the idea occured to me that privacy laws will need to accommodate a new potential frontier in advertising, eye focus advertising.   If a person looks at a word in a tweet for 3 seconds,  all of that eye focus data, how a person of a certain demographic looks at a particular word, how long, possibly their facial expression,  index and abstract that information,  it could give the concept of advertising a whole new meaning.  Big marketing is watching what you’re watching.   Brave New World.

Sovereignty of Government Laws Supersede Multinational Corporation Processes

Personally, I think it is tantamount to invasion of privacy without probable cause if the countries are allowed to sequestor information on a particular citizen.  Is there privacy any more, or is every word spoken and written word should be assumed to be of public note.  Should citizens then counteract with encryption algorithms which take even the most powerful computers days, if not months to decrypt?  It allows no freedom of speech, but after all we are not a singular society of laws, we are multiple societies of conflictional  laws that do not coalesce into a unilateral or singular personal privacy law.  Therefore, multinational corporate conglomerates, are subject to conflictional personal rights laws, which cannot be easily reconciled. Which laws of what land takes precedence, especially if a specific communication originates in one country with specific laws and the end of the communication ends in a country with opposite laws, which require ring fencing.  Unilateral personal rights laws across the globe are problematic to global conglomerates, and inhibit progress.  There is no precedence to these laws which span communications between countries.  Unfortunately, a global unity such as a legal body of personal privacy protection as well as the protection of sovereignties does not exist.   Maybe an ISO ruling under the U.N, should have teeth to agreed upon and enforce rights that protect both the individual, group, and sovereignty when precedents dictates,  These legal matters inhibit progress, for better or for worse,  Thanks to the New York Times title, which sparked my neurons, Governments Worldwide Asking Google to Hand Over More Data

Amendment (12/04/12):

After thinking this through, the ultimate conclusion is the Google / China effect, whereby to respect the locality rules of the sovereignty, e.g. ring fencing data, content ratings, export of data, a multinational corporation isn’t excused from those rules just because they are the biggest player and can muscle their way into the country forcing their own process upon the local society.  We’ve had too much of that in human history.  Therefore, if, for example Google has a centralized data center for all of Europe based out of the U.K., and the Island of Jersey off the coast has ring fencing rules whereby you must keep the data within the country of origin , so if both sender and receiver reside on the Island of Jersey, the data must remain on the island.  Google, or any other multinational has two choices, figure out how to abide by local laws, and implement them, or make the executive decision to exit the market, just as they did with China.  In China, another major player sprung up in Google’s place in this market, and perhaps even more may spawn in Google’s place.  It is simply the cost of doing business in that country.  In our Island of Jersey example, Google might be required to build a small data center just to house the Island of Jersey specific data, for ring fencing compliance, and man it as well.  The cost, Google might think, outweighs the reward for them.  Basic economics.  Other, perhaps smaller companies, may jump in to seize the opportunity, which the multinational Google, walked away from based on their assessment of doing business.  This creates opportunities for other companies and people.  In fact, the people promoting this advertising campaign of a free internet, such as the multinationals, probably have the most to loose by imposing their process against the government laws of a sovereign land.