Tagged as "libraries" via my GoogleReader

Showing posts with label consumers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumers. Show all posts

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Driving Around with Big Brother














Example of an Event Data Recorder (EDR) Device via http://www.njlawman.com/news/event-data-recorder.htm



Bruce Schneier - Black Box Records in Automobiles (May 26, 2011)

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/black_box_recor.html

Keith Barry - Automotive Black Boxes, Minus the Gray Area (May 23, 2011)

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/

"Binary Blogger" - Black Boxes In Your Car, Safety Issue Or Easier To Apply Blame? (May 31, 2011)

http://technorati.com/technology/article/black-boxes-in-your-car-safety/

Alex Nishimoto -Thread of the Day: Do You Support Having a “Black Box” in Your Car? (May 27, 2011)

http://wot.motortrend.com/thread-day-support-having-black-box-car-82309.html#ixzz1O9YaRezR


* * *

In Cory Doctorow's free e-book version of Little Brother, security technologist and author, Bruce Schneier pens one of the afterwards.

I have since checked out Schneier's website and have subscribed to his blog feed.

Recently, Schneier pointed out that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's is considering the proposal of new rules for the United States that would make it a requirement for automobile makers to install "black box" event data recorders (EDR's) in all new vehicles. These black boxes would always be turned on, the data collected would likely be a trade secret, and most people would probably only be vaguely aware of their existence (and only then because of a legal disclosure in the owners manual, which disclosure likely explains that to tamper with the device may make affect your warranty coverage).

The information recorded by these black boxes could, in turn, be used by insurance companies, law enforcement, and the automobile companies themselves, for instance.

Creepy? Outrageous? Well, according to Keith Barry's May 23rd Wired.com article:

Automakers have long installed electronic data recorders in their automobiles, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has since late 2006 required automakers to tell consumers about the devices. That federal rule also outlines what information is recorded and stipulates that it be used to increase vehicle safety.

For instance, since the early 1990's nearly all GM vehicles with airbags have contained these EDR devices, which have evolved over time to collect data from at least 30 different data points.

The data can be used by the auto manufacturer's for improving safety and analyzing collisions. (Sounds ok, right?)

In the case of a lawsuit, this data can be used as evidence if permitted by state law. State law can also determine whether law enforcement can access the data without a warrant or subpoena.

Technorati.com writer, "Binary Blogger," poses some great "food for thought" about this issue:

...you have no idea what is being recorded. Speed, brakes, engine statistics would be the basic data points you would think are getting stored, but what about GPS position? With almost every car new having a GPS installed in them, why couldn't they store your coordinates as you drive as well? Record if you have your seat belt on or not? Look at the volume of your radio? Detect how many people are in the car? If your car has a camera system, who says they are not taking a picture every 30 seconds and storing it? Cars today have several computers all over the place to control fuel, brakes, electrical, etc... all it takes is a small change to record a data point.

Some insurance companies have been offering reduced premiums for drivers who agree to have their driving monitored by the insurance companies via EDR technology. For at-risk drivers, this would be a tempting way to be able to stay on the road.

I found MotorTrend's poll on the question of whether its readers support having black boxes installed in their vehicles interesting, as well. As one commenter, "Tom", put it:

The reason there is no outrage over GM using them is that if you truly do not want one, you can simply choose another brand, or take the box out of your GM car. Also, the government would not be monitoring the boxes on one brand. If every car was required to have one, it would not be a stretch for the government to start keeping tabs on people.


Dangerous Questions?
Does your car have a black box installed? Check out your owner's manual and the lists maintained at HarrisTechnical.com.

Unless you drive an older vehicle and/or a vehicle without air bags, chances are your car is using EDR technology. It looks like my 1999 Jeep Wrangler may be "black box"-free (with Wranglers carrying the technology for 2007 models and newer).

Now that you've determined whether you have been driving around with a black box, how do you feel about this? Relieved? Safe? Annoyed? Angry? Indifferent?

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Libraries and Consumer Empowerment

Image Source: Zazzle.com
Image Source: Zazzle.com


Two recent articles that relate to online privacy and consumer empowerment have been on my mind:



The LA Times piece boldly opens:
Apple introduced its Macintosh computer in 1984 with a now-famous Super Bowl commercial that showed a lone rebel striking out against Big Brother. So it was ironic that researchers recently accused the company of an Orwellian intrusion into consumer privacy: Its iPhones and iPads appeared to be tracking their users' movements.


The researchers referred to by the LA Times article, Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden, have caused quite a stir since their April 20th O'Reilly Radar article came out. The subsequent media coverage about Allan and Warden's discovery that Apple's smart phones with iOS4 operating system contain an unencrypted file with time-stamped, frequently updated GPS coordinates of nearby Wi-Fi hot spots and cellphone towers--data that could go back several months or even a year. When syncing with your computer, the file can be accessed by anyone using that computer, as well. Apple has issued an official response to this discovery, maintaining that it has never tracked the movements of its customers and therefore personal privacy has not been breached, that the data used to help calculate locations faster for applications such as maps while using less battery power, and that third-party apps do not, have not, and will not be provided any data on their devices unless the consumer explicitly agrees to this.
Side Note: In my opinion, South Park's recent Human CENTiPAD episode skillfully and hilariously addresses Apple's GPS tracking as well as the issue of corporate terms that consumers are responsible for understanding and agreeing to in order to access updates, applications, etc.
Check out 10 Things South Park Human CENTiPAD Got Right.

Essentially, Apple has described this unencrypted file an unintentional "bug" that will be "fixed" by an update that will be released soon that reduces the size of the file/duration of time the data is kept and gives consumers the option of turning off the "Location Services." On the other hand, Apple customers can easily change the settings on their device to automatically encrypt all back up data, but why would the average smart phone user think to do this unless they were aware of potential privacy issues?

The media attention and public outcry that has evolved since the April 20th O'Reilly Radar Apple tracking story (which could have been broken about a year ago) has caught the attention of federal legislators who now are holding hearings regarding consumer privacy (in light of concerns about Apple as well as consumer data being tracked by Google, Facebook, and other online entities). In Some Thoughts on Internet Privacy Legislation, several sobering points are examined, including:
  • 64% of Americans with cell phones use smart phones
  • There is conflict within government regarding its own potential needs to use such data as evidence in criminal investigations (according to the May 10th testimony given by Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Criminal Division)
  • Courts have been ruling that governments do not necessarily need a warrant to conduct computer hard drive (and smart phones/mobile device) search and seizures.
  • Marketing and law enforcement agencies view such consumer privacy data as a goldmine, and therefore have a lot at stake should the laws change.
  • In light of incidents such as the government's fight to keep the library provisions in each re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, it is not hard to imagine that the current Senate hearings will not lead to any meaningful changes. In fact, it is in the interest of these stakeholders to keep consumers unprotected and disempowered.

Dangerous Questions?

In terms of the philosophy of "intellectual freedom," and with competing priorities and financial considerations in mind, is it at all common for libraries as organizations and library administrators to make it a priority to provide programs, services, and resources to the community that would directly empower consumers to become aware of current and ongoing privacy issues, while connecting these issues with the broad range of issues that can fall under the umbrella of intellectual freedom?

Do "canned programs" like Banned Books Week and Choose Privacy Week go far enough?

If you were employed by a library-related institution that did not prioritize such programs, services, and resources, under what circumstances and how far would you be willing to go to advocate for your community?




"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."
- Karl Ludwig Börne, German journalist (1786-1837)





Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More