A team of software engineers and developers in San Francisco has created the ultimate in online voyeurism – a website that lets you search through the status updates of Facebook users all over the world. The site, called Openbook, scours status updates written by people who have not set them to private. At the time of writing, a search for "sad" returns more than two dozen status updates posted within the last 60 seconds, by users located anywhere from the US to the Middle East. For example, one user from Canberra said: "pretty good day today (: bit sad that i cant go to netball :(" Another from Phoenix, Arizona: "Had so much fun at applebee's! hahaha:D tonight was sad but good." The search results show each user's name, photo and a link to their profile alongside the full text of their status and can be filtered to include only men, only women or everyone. Some of the most recent search phrases on the site include "naked pictures", "going to a strip club" and "rectal exam". All three return dozens of results – though they might not be as raunchy as searchers were expecting.
The people behind Openbook say they created the site to draw attention to Facebook's recent controversial privacy changes that mean more of each user's information is set to public by default. "To us, it was immediately clear that many people's privacy was being breached," developer Peter Burns told news.com.au. "But in this raw form it was also clear that only very technical folks would understand what was happening. "Someone has to draw attention to this breach of privacy in a way that people will understand." Mr Burns created the site with fellow Californian geeks Will Moffat and James Home. He said the amount of private information being shared with the world through Facebook status updates was staggering. "We've seen people post their private medical history, their phone numbers, their home addresses, personal tragedies and private moments with loved ones," he said.
Openbook uses the tools Facebook makes available to developers who want to search its data – called APIs – to operate. The site doesn’t "hack" anyone's information, but relies on users forgetting to set their status updates to private. Mr Burns said many people didn't realise their information was public because Facebook didn't make a point of telling them. "They change the rules frequently and give no indication when you're sharing something with the entire planet," he said. And if Openbook seems a bit creepy, Mr Burns said there were worse ways people could take advantage of Facebook's "newly relaxed" privacy settings. "An insurance company could build a database of people engaging in risky behaviour or exhibiting precursors to expensive medical conditions," he said. "(Or) thieves could look for status updates indicating people would be out of town on extended vacations."
Thursday 20 May 2010
Tuesday 11 May 2010
98pc support R18+ video game rating
A preliminary report from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department has found overwhelming support for the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games. Almost 60,000 people responded to the Government's discussion paper on whether the National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category. More than 98 per cent said they were in favour of it.
Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Geordie Guy says the response is not surprising because at the moment people are blocked from playing computer games that do not make it in the MA15+ classification. "Every developed country has a rating for adults to be able to access adult-type entertainment, (but) we don't have an R18+ rating for computer games in this country," he said. "The highest rating we can have for a computer game is MA15+, so if we can't squeeze it into an MA rating then it has to be refused classification and no adult can get their hands on it. "We're hoping the Government will listen to the overwhelming public response and fix that up."
The lack of an R18+ rating means particularly violent or adult-themed computer games are either censored or banned in Australia.
Australia does have an R18+ rating for movies.
[via]
Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Geordie Guy says the response is not surprising because at the moment people are blocked from playing computer games that do not make it in the MA15+ classification. "Every developed country has a rating for adults to be able to access adult-type entertainment, (but) we don't have an R18+ rating for computer games in this country," he said. "The highest rating we can have for a computer game is MA15+, so if we can't squeeze it into an MA rating then it has to be refused classification and no adult can get their hands on it. "We're hoping the Government will listen to the overwhelming public response and fix that up."
The lack of an R18+ rating means particularly violent or adult-themed computer games are either censored or banned in Australia.
Australia does have an R18+ rating for movies.
[via]
Sunday 9 May 2010
Top 10 internet filter lies
by Eliza Cussen, 25 Mar 2010 - via The Punch
Just in case readers believe what people tell them, here are some of the things that have been said about internet filtering…and exactly why they shouldn’t be believed. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Lie # 1: The filter will help in the fight against child pornography.
I wish this were true. But it isn’t. Even child protection group, Save The Children, has come out exposing Conroy’s plan as unworkable and the wrong way to protect children online. The filter will not (and Stephen Conroy admits this) work for the areas where unwanted material actually lives, namely: peer-to-peer networking, instant messaging, torrents, direct emails and chat rooms.
Lie # 2: The filter won’t slow connection speeds.
The filter is not equipped to process large bandwidth sites such as YouTube or ABC iView. Google, owner of YouTube, has said that filtering such volume sites is not technologically possible, without an extremely serious impact on internet access speeds. Why? Imagine a tub of yoghurt. In this tub there are a few billion bacteria- almost all of which are good for you. But just one of those germs is believed to be salmonella. In order to get rid of the bad one but keep the billions of good ones, every single germ has to be checked for nastiness. And meanwhile you’re still waiting for your smoothie. No wonder this kind of a filtering won’t work.
Lie #3: Conroy’s filter will stop your kids viewing harmful stuff online.
The filter is designed to block material which is defined Refused Classification by the classification review board. This means that the ISP filter won’t help you protect your child from viewing things that you might prefer they don’t see - only parental control can do that. It’s a bit like hiring a really expensive babysitter who lets your six-year-old watch whatever they want. On the internet you simply can’t outsource parenting.
Lie #4: The filter has been proven in Government trials.
Testing and scaling are two very different things when it comes to filtering mass amounts of content. On top of this Stephen Conroy’s test criteria appear to only have been formulated after the test began. With that kind of logic we should be glad Conroy isn’t designing the national curriculum.
Lie #5: This plan is no different to what is already done with books and films.
OK, so that’s a little bit true. But that’s the problem. We don’t use books and films to communicate one to one or store our family photos. A mandatory filter would give the government permission to scrutinise a space which is both public and private in a way current censorship laws could never allow. The mass concerns of the hundred thousand plus Australians who’ve taken action on this issue are beginning to be heard with the Government appearing to cave in on whether Government officials or classification board members review websites that find themselves on the list. But here’s the point – while with movies we can keep an eye on the classification board and what they are blocking, there’s no way to know which sites will be on the blacklist under the Government’s current proposal. Informing the public of which url’s are on the list may have its own problems. Clearly then, censoring the internet just can’t work (and we’re only half way through our list).
Lie #6: The ISP filter is similar to ones in other Western democracies.
Senator Conroy made this claim and then later admitted that in fact no Western democracy has a mandatory ISP level filter designed like Australia’s in. Surely we don’t want to join countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia with their harsh and ineffective censorship approach.
Lie #7: The filter will not make the internet more expensive.
The filter itself is pricey. The Government has set aside $44m for the scheme for four years. In 2004 a government report said “given the limited benefits of an ISP-level filtering system, the costs of a mandated requirement to filter do not appear justified.” The same Government report estimated that a filter of this kind would cost $45m to establish (the equivalent to putting over 300 AFP officers on the online beat) and $33m each year there after. Because much of the burden of maintaining the filter may fall to ISPs it isn’t unfeasible to imagine the costs being passed on to consumers.
Lie #8: If you’re anti mandatory filtering you’re pro child porn.
Conroy, through his argument in parliament and in the media, has constructed a universe where those who question mandatory filtering are, by extension, in support of child pornography. Surely he wouldn’t accuse people within his own party of being pro child porn. Would he?
Lie #9: The filter would be impenetrable.
No matter how smart filtering technology may be, there is always someone smarter. The current model of filter has already been cracked. In fact, there’s a good chance your children can show you how. What’s more, organisations around the world are already developing ways to get around the filters of oppressive regimes. One that’s doing a particularly good job in helping Iranians get around their Government filter is Access Now (hyperlink:http://www.accessnow.org/), founded with the support of organisation’s like Avaaz.org, MoveOn and Australian organisation GetUp.org.au).
Lie #10: An ISP filter is the best option out there.
Calls to provide parents with tools to control their children’s access to the internet are well founded and practical. An optional, computer level filter would be far more efficient and cost effective without handing over unnecessary power to a government body. And this is the plan that Australians actually want. GetUp’s Galaxy phone poll found that 86% of Australians think that parents, not the Government or Internet Service Providers, should have the primary responsibility for protecting children online.
Let’s just hope Senator Conroy read’s this post – I would love to read his reply.
Just in case readers believe what people tell them, here are some of the things that have been said about internet filtering…and exactly why they shouldn’t be believed. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Lie # 1: The filter will help in the fight against child pornography.
I wish this were true. But it isn’t. Even child protection group, Save The Children, has come out exposing Conroy’s plan as unworkable and the wrong way to protect children online. The filter will not (and Stephen Conroy admits this) work for the areas where unwanted material actually lives, namely: peer-to-peer networking, instant messaging, torrents, direct emails and chat rooms.
Lie # 2: The filter won’t slow connection speeds.
The filter is not equipped to process large bandwidth sites such as YouTube or ABC iView. Google, owner of YouTube, has said that filtering such volume sites is not technologically possible, without an extremely serious impact on internet access speeds. Why? Imagine a tub of yoghurt. In this tub there are a few billion bacteria- almost all of which are good for you. But just one of those germs is believed to be salmonella. In order to get rid of the bad one but keep the billions of good ones, every single germ has to be checked for nastiness. And meanwhile you’re still waiting for your smoothie. No wonder this kind of a filtering won’t work.
Lie #3: Conroy’s filter will stop your kids viewing harmful stuff online.
The filter is designed to block material which is defined Refused Classification by the classification review board. This means that the ISP filter won’t help you protect your child from viewing things that you might prefer they don’t see - only parental control can do that. It’s a bit like hiring a really expensive babysitter who lets your six-year-old watch whatever they want. On the internet you simply can’t outsource parenting.
Lie #4: The filter has been proven in Government trials.
Testing and scaling are two very different things when it comes to filtering mass amounts of content. On top of this Stephen Conroy’s test criteria appear to only have been formulated after the test began. With that kind of logic we should be glad Conroy isn’t designing the national curriculum.
Lie #5: This plan is no different to what is already done with books and films.
OK, so that’s a little bit true. But that’s the problem. We don’t use books and films to communicate one to one or store our family photos. A mandatory filter would give the government permission to scrutinise a space which is both public and private in a way current censorship laws could never allow. The mass concerns of the hundred thousand plus Australians who’ve taken action on this issue are beginning to be heard with the Government appearing to cave in on whether Government officials or classification board members review websites that find themselves on the list. But here’s the point – while with movies we can keep an eye on the classification board and what they are blocking, there’s no way to know which sites will be on the blacklist under the Government’s current proposal. Informing the public of which url’s are on the list may have its own problems. Clearly then, censoring the internet just can’t work (and we’re only half way through our list).
Lie #6: The ISP filter is similar to ones in other Western democracies.
Senator Conroy made this claim and then later admitted that in fact no Western democracy has a mandatory ISP level filter designed like Australia’s in. Surely we don’t want to join countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia with their harsh and ineffective censorship approach.
Lie #7: The filter will not make the internet more expensive.
The filter itself is pricey. The Government has set aside $44m for the scheme for four years. In 2004 a government report said “given the limited benefits of an ISP-level filtering system, the costs of a mandated requirement to filter do not appear justified.” The same Government report estimated that a filter of this kind would cost $45m to establish (the equivalent to putting over 300 AFP officers on the online beat) and $33m each year there after. Because much of the burden of maintaining the filter may fall to ISPs it isn’t unfeasible to imagine the costs being passed on to consumers.
Lie #8: If you’re anti mandatory filtering you’re pro child porn.
Conroy, through his argument in parliament and in the media, has constructed a universe where those who question mandatory filtering are, by extension, in support of child pornography. Surely he wouldn’t accuse people within his own party of being pro child porn. Would he?
Lie #9: The filter would be impenetrable.
No matter how smart filtering technology may be, there is always someone smarter. The current model of filter has already been cracked. In fact, there’s a good chance your children can show you how. What’s more, organisations around the world are already developing ways to get around the filters of oppressive regimes. One that’s doing a particularly good job in helping Iranians get around their Government filter is Access Now (hyperlink:http://www.accessnow.org/), founded with the support of organisation’s like Avaaz.org, MoveOn and Australian organisation GetUp.org.au).
Lie #10: An ISP filter is the best option out there.
Calls to provide parents with tools to control their children’s access to the internet are well founded and practical. An optional, computer level filter would be far more efficient and cost effective without handing over unnecessary power to a government body. And this is the plan that Australians actually want. GetUp’s Galaxy phone poll found that 86% of Australians think that parents, not the Government or Internet Service Providers, should have the primary responsibility for protecting children online.
Let’s just hope Senator Conroy read’s this post – I would love to read his reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)