Category: privacy

The researchers’ latest work builds on a study they published a year ago of 3,747 US non-federal hospital websites. That found 98.6 percent tracked and transferred visitors’ data to large tech and social media companies, advertising firms, and data brokers. To find the trackers on websites, the team checked out each hospitals’ homepage on January 26 using webXray, an open source tool that detects third-party HTTP requests and matches them to the organizations receiving the data. They also recorded the number of third-party cookies per page. One name in particular stood out, in terms of who was receiving website visitors’ information. “In every study we’ve done, in any part of the health system, Google, whose parent company is Alphabet, is on nearly every page, including hospitals,” [Dr Ari Friedman, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania] observed. “From there, it declines,” he continued. “Meta was on a little over half of hospital webpages, and the Meta Pixel is notable because it seems to be one of the grabbier entities out there in terms of tracking.”

Both Meta and Google’s tracking technologies have been the subject of criminal complaints and lawsuits over the years — as have some healthcare companies that shared data with these and other advertisers. In addition, between 20 and 30 percent of the hospitals share data with Adobe, Friedman noted. “Everybody knows Adobe for PDFs. My understanding is they also have a tracking division within their ad division.” Others include telecom and digital marketing companies like The Trade Desk and Verizon, plus tech giants Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon, according to Friedman. Then there’s also analytics firms including Hotjar and data brokers such as Acxiom. “And two thirds of hospital websites had some kind of data transfer to a third-party domain that we couldn’t even identify,” he added. Of the 71 hospital website privacy policies that the team found, 69 addressed the types of user information that was collected. The most common were IP addresses (80 percent), web browser name and version (75 percent), pages visited on the website (73 percent), and the website from which the user arrived (73 percent). Only 56 percent of these policies identified the third-party companies receiving user information. In lieu of any federal data privacy law in the U.S., Friedman recommends users protect their personal information via the browser-based tools Ghostery and Privacy Badger, which identify and block transfers to third-party domains.

“The cost? Signing up for the league’s ‘facial authentication’ software through its ticketing app.”

The Giants are using MLB’s new Go-Ahead Entry program, which intends to cut down on wait times for fans entering games. The pitch is simple: Take a selfie through the MLB Ballpark app (which already has your tickets on it), upload the selfie and, once you’re approved, breeze through the ticketing lines and into the ballpark. Fans will barely have to slow down at the entrance gate on their way to their seats…

The Philadelphia Phillies were MLB’s test team for the technology in 2023. They’re joined by the Giants, Nationals and Astros in 2024…

[Major League Baseball] says it won’t be saving or storing pictures of faces in a database — and it clearly would really like you to not call this technology facial recognition. “This is not the type of facial recognition that’s scanning a crowd and specifically looking for certain kinds of people,” Karri Zaremba, a senior vice president at MLB, told ESPN. “It’s facial authentication. … That’s the only way in which it’s being utilized.”

Privacy advocates “have pointed out that the creep of facial recognition technology may be something to be wary of,” the article acknowledges. But it adds that using the technology is still completely optional.

And they also spoke to the San Francisco Giants’ senior vice president of ticket sales, who gushed about the possibility of app users “walking into the ballpark without taking your phone out, or all four of us taking our phones out.”

“It appears likely that the same username/password combinations had been used as login information for such third-party services as well as certain individual Roku accounts,” reads the data breach notice. “As a result, unauthorized actors were able to obtain login information from third-party sources and then use it to access certain individual Roku accounts. “After gaining access, they then changed the Roku login information for the affected individual Roku accounts, and, in a limited number of cases, attempted to purchase streaming subscriptions.” Roku says that it secured the impacted accounts and forced a password reset upon detecting the incident. Additionally, the platform’s security team investigated for any charges due to unauthorized purchases performed by the hackers and took steps to cancel the relevant subscriptions and refund the account holders.

A researcher told BleepingComputer last week that the threat actors have been using a Roku config to perform credential stuffing attacks for months, bypassing brute force attack protections and captchas by using specific URLs and rotating through lists of proxy servers. Successfully hacked accounts are then sold on stolen account marketplaces for as little as 50 cents, as seen below where 439 accounts are being sold. The seller of these accounts provides information on how to change information on the account to make fraudulent purchases. Those who purchase the stolen accounts hijack them with their own information and use stored credit cards to purchase cameras, remotes, soundbars, light strips, and streaming boxes. After making their purchases, it is common for them to share screenshots of redacted order confirmation emails on Telegram channels associated with the stolen account marketplaces.

The 2021 lawsuit, given class-action status in September, alleges that Digital Recognition Network is breaking a California law meant to regulate the use of automatic license plate readers. DRN, a Fort Worth-based company, uses plate-scanning cameras to create location data for people’s vehicles, then sells that data to marketers, car repossessors and insurers.

What’s particularly notable about the case is the size of the class. The court has established that if you’re a California resident whose license plate data was collected by DRN at least 15 times since June 2017, you’re a class member. The plaintiff’s legal team estimates that the tally includes about 23 million people, alleging that DRN cameras were mounted to cars on public roads. The case website lets Californians check whether their plates were scanned.

Barring a settlement or delay, the trial to decide whether DRN must pay a penalty to those class members will begin on May 17 in San Diego County Superior Court…

The company’s cameras scan 220 million plates a month, its website says, and customers can use plate data to “create comprehensive vehicle stories.”

A lawyer for the firm representing class members told SFGATE Friday that his team will try to show DRN’s business is a “mass surveillance program.”

Which is not anything new… Companies have been doing this for decades, except as paid services you requested. Now the trend is basically anyone can do it over my systems, and they are always more than happy to sell anyone, me included, my data they collected without authorization or consent. It’s data they never had the rights to collect and/or compile to begin with, including data collected thru access attempts via known default accounts (Administrator, root, admin, guest) and/or leaked credentials provided by hacked databases when a few elements seemingly match…

“Just block those crawlers”? That’s what some of those companies advise, but not only does the site operator have to automate it themself, not all companies offer lists of their source IP addresses or identify them. Some use multiple/different crawler domain names from their commercial product, or use cloud providers such as Google Cloud, AWS and Azure â” so one can’t just block access to their company’s networks without massive implications. They also change their own information with no warning, and many times, no updates to their own lists. Then, there is the indirect cost: computing cost, network cost, development cost, review cycle cost. It is a cat-and-mice game that has become very boring.

With the raise of concerns and ethical questions about AI harvesting and learning from copyrighted work, how are those security companies any different from AI, and how could one legally put a stop on this?

Block those crawlers? Change your Terms of Service? What’s the best fix… Share your own thoughts and suggestions in the comments.
How can you stop security firms from harvesting your data?

“The acquisition time in minutes is too cumbersome to launch simple and general privacy attacks on a mass scale,” says Lukasz Olejnik, an independent security researcher and consultant who has previously highlighted the security risks posed by ambient light sensors. “However, I would not rule out the significance of targeted collections for tailored operations against chosen targets.” But he also points out that, following his earlier research, the World Wide Web Consortium issued a new standard that limited access to the light sensor API, which has already been adopted by browser vendors.

Liu notes, however, that there are still no blanket restrictions for Android apps. In addition, the researchers discovered that some devices directly log data from the light sensor in a system file that is easily accessible, bypassing the need to go through an API. The team also found that lowering the resolution of the images could bring the acquisition times within practical limits while still maintaining enough detail for basic recognition tasks. Nonetheless, Liu agrees that the approach is too complicated for widespread attacks. And one saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever work on a smartphone as the displays are simply too small. But Liu says their results demonstrate how seemingly harmless combinations of components in mobile devices can lead to surprising security risks.

In Canada, paid sharing resulted in a larger Netflix membership base and an acceleration in revenue growth, which has given Netflix the confidence to expand it to the United States. When Netflix brings its paid sharing rules to the United States, multi-household account use will no longer be permitted. Netflix subscribers who share an account with those who do not live with them will need to pay for an additional member. In Canada, Netflix charges $7.99 CAD for an extra member, which is around $6. […] Netflix claims that more than 100 million households are sharing accounts, which is impacting its ability to “invest in and improve Netflix” for paying members.

“It means that even a global tech giant can’t ignore local privacy laws,” Albert Cahn, project director, said in a text message. “As we wait for long overdue federal privacy laws, it shows there is so much local governments can do to protect their residents.”

“Today, let’s kill off four privacy and security bogus beliefs, including that you need a VPN to stay safe online. (No, you probably don’t.)
Myth No. 3: You need a VPN to stay safe online.
…for most people in the United States and other democracies, “There is no real reason why you should use a VPN,” said Frédéric Rivain, chief technology officer of Dashlane, a password management service that also offers a VPN…. If you’re researching sensitive subjects like depression and don’t want family members to know or corporations to keep records of your activities, Rivain said you might be better off using a privacy-focused web browser such as Brave or the search engine DuckDuckGo. If you use a VPN, that company has records of what you’re doing. And advertisers will still figure out how to pitch ads based on your online activities.

P.S. If you’re concerned about crooks stealing your info when you use WiFi networks in coffee shops or airports and want to use a VPN to disguise what you’re doing, you probably don’t need to. Using public WiFi is safe now in most circumstances, my colleague Tatum Hunter has reported.
“Many VPNs are also dodgy and may do far more harm than good,” their myth-busting continues, referring readers to an earlier analysis by the Washington Post (with some safe recommendations).

On a more sympathetic note, they acknowledge that “It’s exhausting to be a human on the internet. Companies and public officials could be doing far more to protect you.”

But as it is, “the internet is a nonstop scam machine and a little paranoia is healthy.”

The Anti-Theft Mode option is meant to make it easier to locate stolen items by preventing thieves from knowing an item is being tracked. Tile points out that in addition to Anti-Theft Mode, its trackers do not notify nearby smartphone users when an unknown Bluetooth tracker is traveling with them, making them more useful for tracking stolen items than AirTags. Apple has added alerts for nearby AirTags to prevent AirTags from being used for tracking people. Enabling Anti-Theft mode will require users to link a government-issued ID card to their Tile account, submitting to an “advanced ID verification process” that uses a biometric scan to detect fake IDs. […] Anti-Theft Mode is rolling out to Tile users starting today, and will be available to all users in the coming weeks.