Tag Archive: Anonymity


Our Millionth View

Privacy And Our Millionth View

 

 

 

Coming Soon

 

 

 

 

  Greetings readers , it is with some measure of both pride and pleasure that we here at YouViewed announce that sometime within the next two weeks or so , assuming viewership rates remain somewhat stable , we will be receiving our one millionth view . 

   That being said , we have a question for our fellow WordPress bloggers . Do any of you know how we could identify who provides us with that notable milestone ? As time draws nearer the editors will be able to narrow the time of the event down to the individual day but is there a way to track individual readers and the timing of their visits ?

   As I write this it dawns on me that the whole concept of tracking individual readers , visiting times and their views is completely antithetical to what we here at YouViewed stand for and gives me pause . Forgive us for considering the notion of tracking our readers . It was an ill-conceived notion . 

   In light of the privacy conundrums that have only now become self-evident to us we would still very much like to be able to share our celebration of our millionth view with the reader responsible for that view , whether publicly or privately . If any readers have any ideas on how or if it is possible to identify the millionth viewer we would greatly appreciate the tip . Thank you , editor 

 

 

 

Update: We reached our millionth view on Wednesday night without a hint of who that viewer was so the privacy issue is moot . What isn’t moot though is this blogger’s desire to find a job so if any of you know of some work available for a blogger with some editing and social media skills please contact us at mail@youviewed.com . Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Google Received 12,000 Requests To Be ‘Forgotten’ On First Day, Report Says

 

 

google form

 

 

” It’s been less than 48 hours since Google launched its online tool that allows people in the European Union to request to be “forgotten” from search results, and the company has already received 12,000 requests, according to a new report.

  The requests are in response to a European Court of Justice ruling earlier this month that found EU citizens have a “right to be forgotten” online and that Google must remove links to search results that can damage a person’s reputation.

  Reuters reports the company received 12,000 requests in the first 24 hours the form was online, with requests at times coming in as fast as 20 per minute.”

 

Mashable has more on people’s desire to be “forgotten”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facial Recognition: Is The Technology Taking Away Your Identity?

 

facial recognition

 

 

” This summer, Facebook will present a paper at a computer vision conference revealing how it has created a tool almost as accurate as the human brain when it comes to saying whether two photographs show the same person – regardless of changes in lighting and camera angles. A human being will get the answer correct 97.53% of the time; Facebook’s new technology scores an impressive 97.25%. “We closely approach human performance,” says Yaniv Taigman, a member of its AI team.

  Since the ability to recognise faces has long been a benchmark for artificial intelligence, developments such as Facebook’s “DeepFace” technology (yes, that’s what it called it) raise big questions about the power of today’s facial recognition tools and what these mean for the future.

  Facebook is not the only tech company interested in facial recognition. A patent published by Apple in March shows how the Cupertino company has investigated the possibility of using facial recognition as a security measure for unlocking its devices – identifying yourself to your iPhone could one day be as easy as snapping a quick selfie.

  Google has also invested heavily in the field. Much of Google’s interest in facial recognition revolves around the possibilities offered by image search, with the search leviathan hoping to find more intelligent ways to sort through the billions of photos that exist online. Since Google, like Facebook wants to understand its users, it makes perfect sense that the idea of piecing together your life history through public images would be of interest, although users who uploaded images without realising they could be mined in this manner might be less impressed when they end up with social media profiles they never asked for.

  Google’s deepest dive into facial recognition is its Google Glass headsets. Thanks to the camera built into each device, the headsets would seem to be tailormade for recognising the people around you. That’s exactly what third-party developers thought as well, since almost as soon as the technology was announced, apps such as NameTag began springing up. NameTag’s idea was simple: that whenever you start a new conversation with a stranger, your Google Glass headset takes a photo of them and then uses this to check the person’s online profile. Whether they share your interest in Werner Herzog films, or happen to be a convicted sex offender, nothing will escape your gaze. “With NameTag, your photo shares you,” the app’s site reads. “Don’t be a stranger.” “

 

More at The Guardian . Read the whole thing and be afraid , very afraid .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inside The Kochs’ Reid Brush Back

 

 

 

 

” Charles and David Koch raised eyebrows in D.C. last week with an aggressive push back of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after the Nevada Democrat delivered the kind of bare-knuckle attack on the billionaire brothers that has become commonplace by top Democrats in the Citizens United era. 

” All Americans should be deeply concerned when officials use their elected office, particularly the office of the Senate Majority Leader, to stifle First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” Philip Ellender, a top official at Koch Industries, told Breitbart News. Ellender also released a sharply-worded letter taking Reid to task. 

  Sources close to the issue say the brush back was mostly motivated by sincere outrage. “Harry Reid, on the Senate floor – the majority leader – going after private citizens?” asks a top Koch ally incredulously, comparing it to the Internal Revenue Services’ targeting of conservative activists.”

 

More at Breitbart

 

 

 

 

 

The Agency Has Attacked Other Software, Including Firefox, In Order To Compromise The Anonymity Tool

 

 
” The U.S. National Security Agency has repeatedly tried to compromise Tor, the government-funded online anonymity tool, but has had little success, according to a new report in the U.K.’s Guardian.

The NSA has tried multiple strategies for defeating Tor, with its most successful method focused on attacking vulnerable software on users’ computers, including the Firefox browser, according to the report, published Friday. In the Firefox attack, NSA agents have been able to gain “full control” of targets’ computers, said the report, citing documents given to the Guardian by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

NSA documents provided by Snowden, which the Guardian began publishing in June, say the agency is collecting bulk phone records in the U.S. as well as Internet communications overseas.

But in many cases, the NSA has been frustrated in its efforts to target Tor users, an irony because the open-source project is largely funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, the NSA’s parent agency, and the U.S. Department of State.

We will never be able to de-anonymize all Tor users all the time,” according to one NSA document quoted by the Guardian. “With manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users.” The NSA has had “no success de-anonymizing a user in response” to a specific request, the document said.

Tor is “the king of high-secure, low-latency internet anonymity,” the report quotes another NSA document as saying.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cashless Utopia Mirage

 

 

” David Wolman’s article The Anonymity Fantasy gets off on the wrong foot by claiming to know what we all “deserve” or “what we all want.” As a reader, this is aggravating on multiple levels, but the pretentious fun doesn’t stop there as we later learn that anonymous cash does not equal freedom and that “clinging to cash” is misguided.

I could be cynical here, but I really don’t think it’s about perfidiously advancing a thesis to promote his new book. I think David actually believes all of this despite what history teaches us.

Let’s not kid ourselves, because the end of money, as we know it, really means the beginning of the transactional surveillance State, which makes this a serious debate about the boundaries of State power and the dignity of an individual.

Anonymity and civil society do mix — it is omnipotent violent government and civil society that do not mix.

Wolman is thinking like a technologist when he promotes the cashless utopia and, as a technologist, he’s probably correct because paper cash is inefficient, problematic, and dirty. But it’s mostly inefficient and problematic for the overzealous regulators and tax collecting apparatus.

Efficiency happens to be a very short-sighted and unintellectual argument. Selective breeding for certain ‘preferred’ traits is a vastly more efficient method and so is the training-from-birth selection criteria employed by totalitarian states that place athletes in the modern Olympics. I doubt Wolman would want to live in those efficient societies — cashless or not.”