More and more people are now turning away from facebook, they are sick of being abused for profit and seeing their personal privacy violated for greed.
Marc Zuckerberg has become the one person most people would rather not be seen dead with.
More and more people are now turning away from facebook, they are sick of being abused for profit and seeing their personal privacy violated for greed.
Marc Zuckerberg has become the one person most people would rather not be seen dead with.
You have to laugh when facebook founder complains a private facebook photo made public.
Randi Zuckerberg — older sister to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — posted a photo from a family gathering to Facebook (of course), showing her sisters using Facebook’s new Snapchat-esque ’Poke’ app on their phones, with Mark Zuckerberg watching with a confused look on his face. It popped up on the Facebook newsfeed of mediaite Callie Schweitzer who subscribes to Zuckerberg. Assuming the photo was a public one, Schweitzer tweeted it to her nearly 40,000 Twitter followers. Zuckerberg was not pleased.
How did this happen?
Facebook has once again changed privacy settings. The picture got out due to tagging.
Tagging is a violation of privacy, people may not wish to be tagged in a photo.
Rather than faulting facebook for what it does best, violating personal privacy, Randi Zuckerberg had the gall to blame Schweitzer. She tweeted:
Always ask permission before posting a friend’s photo publicly. It’s not about privacy settings. It’s about human decency.
It makes you want to throw up, a member of the Zuckerberg family tweeting to others about respecting privacy and human decency when the entire facebook business model is built around violating personal privacy. When facebook is only too happy to sell your personal data and everything you do.
Earlier this month Instagram (owned by facebook) changed their terms and conditions. Your photos would be sold to advertisers, you would not even be told about, let alone paid.
Pot calling the kettle black!
It would appear to be OK to violate the privacy of facebook users, but not if their name is Zuckerberg
I will be quitting Instagram today. What a bummer. You should all read their new rules. — Pink
Trust me, deleting your Instagram account is satisfying. — Mia Farrow wrote
No more Instagram. — Kate Walsh
Either Kevin Systrom is stupid or he thinks Instagram users are stupid.
It could not have been more explicit, from 16 January 2013, new terms and conditions come into force, you have no choice, you are opted in like it or not, and once opted in Instagram deem that you have granted permission for your pictures to be sold to third parties whether you like it or not, you won’t get paid, you won’t even be notified.
We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organisations that help us provide the service to you… (and) third-party advertising partners.
To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.
But according to Kevin Systrom co-founder of Instagram, it does not mean what was writ, that is just poor use of English language.
Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.
Now what when it is at home is ‘ experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram’, other than bullshit, within a denial that is in itself bullshit.
It was not ‘ interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation’, that is what Instagram explicitly stated would happen on 16 January 2013, and the only way to stop this happening was to delete your Instagram account, which many have quite wisely chosen to do.
Facebook, which owns Instagram, and paid a ludicrous price for a fairly worthless application, is a rapacious corporation that thinks nothing of violating the privacy of its users.
Also contrast Kevin Systrom had to say with what Carolyn Everson, Facebook vice president of global marketing, had to say:
There are many brands that use Instagram right now to try to get a feel for how to engage with their followers. We will definitely be figuring out a monetisation strategy. When that will happen, I can’t comment, but it’s going to happen.
What therefore is going on?
Yesterday, according to Anonymous, 500,000 users deleted their Instagram accounts. Today Instagram violating their users and the reaction of users was the front page story on the Metro, so expect more users to delete their accounts. All of which will send facebook shares into free fall.
As already noted, facebook paid a ludicrous amount for a worthless application. The price was not paid in cash, it was cash and facebook shares. Now you will understand the statement of Kevin Systrom. It is not that he cares about users, but he does care about his wealth rapidly vanishing.
Announcing the apparent change of mind, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom told users: “It is not our intention to sell your photos.” He didn’t say “It never was”. He didn’t even say “We never will.”
Systrom claimed the language the original terms and conditions used “raised questions”. His problem is that it didn’t. It told us what sort of a company Instagram is. No wonder users are still closing their accounts.
Would Systrom have even contradicted the Instagram violation of users if there had not been a mass deletion of Instagram accounts?
We all know the answer, which is why the advice is delete Instagram.
The advice is still, delete your Instagram account, post on twitter with the hashtag #BoycottInstagram that you have closed your account.
Instagram has claimed the right use any picture uploaded to the service to promote its corporate customers’ products without any compensation to the user who originally took it.
There are many brands that use Instagram right now to try to get a feel for how to engage with their followers. We will definitely be figuring out a monetisation strategy. When that will happen, I can’t comment, but it’s going to happen. — Carolyn Everson, Facebook vice president of global marketing
For Facebook, this is a case study in how to waste a billion dollars. The company bought a popular service, set about stripping it of what made it successful, and paved the way for the inevitable replacement. — Forbes
Having declared war on twitter, Instagram is now violating its users.
I have never understood why anyone uses Instagram. It is a rubbish application that turns good pictures bad. If you wish to process images, then use a software package like Paintshop Pro or Photoshop.
Facebook paid a ludicrous price for Instagram, far, far more than it was worth, for a trivial application that a couple of half decent software engineers could knock out in a few days. Facebook paid a high price because it was not the application facebook was buying, it was the user database. That gives an inkling of what your personal data is worth to facebook, a company that does not recognise personal privacy.
Following a stock market flotation, with shares going into free fall, facebook has been under growing pressure to milk its assets. Its assets is you!
Milk is the operative word. Users are being herded like cattle.
Once Instagram was acquired by facebook, it was obvious abuse of personal data was going to take place. The only surprise, is that it has not happened sooner.
Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch:
People thought they were Instagram’s customers, but in reality users are Instagram’s product. It goes to show when respecting people’s data and privacy come into conflict with profit, there’s only ever going to be one winner. Users are now paying the price of Facebook’s acquisition of the company and unfortunately this kind of move will be seen time and time again as long as it is our personal data and advertising paying for services.
Last week, users found posting their Instagram pictures to twitter no longer worked. One good thing, I guess, fewer rubbish photos posted to twitter.
From 16 January 2013, new terms and conditions will be imposed on users. No choice, you are opted in by Instagram. The only way to opt out is to delete your Instagram account, but first delete all the information held, including all you pictures.
The new terms and condition are a serious breach of personal privacy, and quite possibly a breach of data protection across Europe. Users used Instagram to share with their friends, not to share with unknown third parties.
Basically in a nutshell, your pictures, personal information, can be shared with third parties, your pictures used in adversing campaigns.
Instagram can share information about its users with Facebook, its parent company, as well as outside affiliates and advertisers
All your personal information, including photos, is for sale.
You could star in an advertisement — without your knowledge
Your pictures, including of you or your friends, can be used in advertising campaigns. Let us say you hate McDonald’s, do not like Starbucks coffee or their tax dodging, how would you then feel to find they are using your photos to promote their products, how would your friends feel if pictures of them are used? And they can use your name. And you do not get paid, or even notified.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based advocacy group, said that the use of a person’s likeness in ads could run into some state laws protecting personal privacy.
Most states have laws that limit the use of a person’s ‘name or likeness’ for commercial purposes without consent. The legal purpose is to allow people to obtain the commercial value of their images and endorsements, which is a big issue for celebrities and others, but also a reasonable concern for Facebook users whose images are used by Facebook to encourage friends to buy products and services.
Underage users are not exempt
Would you be happy to find pictures of your kids are being used?
Ads may not be labeled as ads
It gets worse. We usually know ads are ads. But what if they are not obviously ads?
You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.
Want to opt out? Delete your account!
Do not like? Tough, you are automatically opted in. The only way to opt out is to delete your account. If you remain, you are deemed to have agreed to violation of your personal privacy.
This is like a rape victim being deemed to be a willing participant to rape because she did not scream out.
Instagram also reserves the right to share any cookie derived data with third parties.
The choice is yours. You do not have to be a willing victim to what amounts to rape of your personal data by Instagram. You can delete your account. And that is the recommended course of action.
Prior to deleting your account, you may wish to download all your pictures held on Instagram using Instaport (sign in with your Instagram account).
There are alternatives. You can upload direct to twitter, you can upload to twitpic (which will automatically post to twitter). Or try Snapseed.
If you know Instagram users (they are the ones who send out bad pictures), then please warn them and advise to delete their Instagram accounts. Even if they do not care about abuse by Instagram, make it clear you do (as they may be holding information, pictures, relating to you).
When you delete your Instagram account please advise all your followers on twitter with the hashtag #BoycottInstagram and tell them why.
Instagram may have been one of the fastest growing companies on the net. Let’s see how quickly we can kill it.
As Winston Smith learnt to his cost, Big Brother was monitoring everything he did.
CCTV watches and tracks, face recognition picks you out. GPS pinpoints where you are. Mobile phone networks track where you are, who you are communicating with. Credit and debit cards track where you are, how much you are spending. Store cards track where you are, build a profile of what you buy, where and when.
Facebook apps monitor everything you are doing on facebook, and know who all your friends are.
How many people are aware that their e-book reader is not only monitoring what they read but even gathering fine data such as which passages in a book you may have highlighted, passages that you may pause and reflect upon?
It is one thing to tweet what you are reading, to write a review, even to contact the author with your thoughts on a book, but it is an entirely different matter invasive monitoring of what we read.
Philip Jones editor of The Bookseller (a vested interest if ever there was one), dismisses concerns. Clearly he has no understanding of data mining. Author Joan Brady on the other hand is very concerned at this invasion of privacy, what your e-book reader is reading about you and what the information gathered is being used for.
What are authors doing about this? Are they happy with the privacy of their readers being violated?
Maybe we should all go back to reading real books, books you hold in your hand, and when we buy books do so with cash from a secondhand bookshop.
A couple of weeks ago I seemed to acquire a facebook e-mail account. I have never asked for one, do not desire one, but when it comes to facebook, what does it matter what I or any other of their users think?
I looked for it this evening. I had to delve into settings to find it. At first I thought it had come and gone, but no, there is was, buried under secondary e-mail address in my e-mail settings.
Whilst I was rooting around, I thought I would check facebook apps. I have never signed up for any facebook apps, and yet there was half a dozen facebook apps. Some seemed to be sites I had visited, eg New York Times, but others I had never heard of eg Cities I have Visited.
Check out your face book apps. More important check out what they have access to.
Never use facebook apps. They have access to all your personal data. Do you know where it is going, who has access to that information? Do you even know who is behind the facebook apps?
If you are on spotify, it broadcasts what you are doing to everyone on facebook. It pays artists a pittance. Do not use spotify.
Delete all your facebook apps.
Do not use facebook to sign in to other sites. Do you wish the sites to share data on you?
Delete all personal information on facebook. Would you give it to a stranger in the street? If no, then why do you hand it to the world via facebook?
But if you delete personal data on facebook, it still exists in their archives. I suggest therefore you overwrite with false data first, then delete.
Being given an e-mail address by facebook seems innocuous enough, but nothing facebook does is innocuous.
There has been a storm of protest. Those who have their phones synched to facebook, have had their address books rewritten, facebook has hijacked their e-mail address and replaced with a facebook e-mail address, e-mails have gone missing.
Have I lost e-mails? I do not know, and that is the problem. How do you know you have lost something you never knew you had?
Rachel Luxemburg writes:
Today, a co-worker discovered that his contact info for me had been silently updated to overwrite my work e-mail address with my Facebook e-mail address. He discovered this only after sending work e-mails to the wrong address.
And even worse, the e-mails are not actually in my Facebook messages. I checked.
They’ve vanished into the ether.
For all I know, I could be missing a lot more e-mails from friends, colleagues, or family members, and never even know it.
On Hacker News:
This morning my mother was complaining that many of the e-mail addresses in her Droid Razr contacts had been replaced with Facebook ones.
It would seem the Facebook app had been populating her address book with e-mails and contact photos, and decided to migrate all her Facebook-using contacts over to this convenient new system.
I sync my phone with Facebook for many of my contacts. Now I have an address book full of bogus e-mail addresses where they were correct before.
And just when you think this cannot get worse, Apple have kindly integrated their operating system with facebook so your address book gets updated without you even being notified!
Crap thing changed the primary e-mail address of the contacts in my iPhone iOS 6.
This cannot be overstated: e-mail is being intercepted and goes who knows where!
Let us get this straight: Wikileaks hands to the public information on Big Government and Big Business and they are a bunch of criminals with Julian Assange holed up in the Ecuador Embassy in London fearing extradition to the US. Facebook hands your personal information to corporate criminals and the company gets a ridiculous overinflated valuation on Wall Street.
When something is free, always remember you are the product on sale.
Top Story in Ediscovery and DataProtection Daily (Monday 2 July 2012).
It has recently been raised, should academics and students use facebook as a work tool in which to discuss projects and assignments, maybe do so within a private group.
Yes, it is possible to set up a group on facebook, it can be a private group, invite only, invisible to everyone else.
But, and it is a big but. Would you wish to be connected to the people in the real world, have access to all your personal information, why then in the virtual world?
Facebook is a walled garden. Yes, you can have access to the delights within, but to gain access there is a price to pay, you gain entry by selling your digital soul at the gate.
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of personal information people put on facebook – their partner, their school, their town, their e-mail address, their place of work – more than sufficient for ID theft, more than sufficient to gain access to their bank account.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Facebook is not a social networking site, it is a site for the collection of personal data. When something appears to be free, it is you who is the product on sale.
I was first alerted to the security issue and cavalier attitude to personal privacy some years ago when I started getting requests for my birthday. I asked the persons. I learnt they had not sent the request, it was a facebook app.
Similarly request to send flowers, to do quizzes, play games.
Why does no one query why to play a game requires access to personal data?
Once access is gained, onto the next victim.
Access includes access to your list of friends.
I recently did a search for an article on spotify and how it rips people off. I landed on spotify, but somewhat unusual I was in a request to join. But the scary part was to save me filling out the form, one click and the required information would be transferred from facebook. That filled out included e-mail, and information that I had deleted from facebook. It also showed me the people I am connected to on facebook who use spotify.
I have absolutely no wish to us spotify. Spotify is the facebook model, it collects personal data.
I am baffled why anyone uses spotify when bandcamp is far far superior.
A facebook app has access to all your personal information, including your profile picture and who you are connected to. Remember that lewd profile picture that you now feel embarrassed by that you thought only your friends could see? Every facebook app you ever gave consent to, also has a copy.
Who is behind the facebook app, what do they do with this information?
So where do we go from here. We wish to enter the walled garden, but we do not like the entry fee.
By all means enter but do the following:
If you have information on facebook that you wish people to see, then create tunnels through the wall. Provide links to give direct access. Do not force them to join facebook.
Who needs NSA, GCHQ when facebook so effectively does their job for them?
Top Story in Privacy Daily (Tuesday 1 May 2012).
Why it is bad to use a facebook app, is best illustrated by an example.
At the weekend on Earth Day, Imogen Heap streamed a live event from the garden of the Round House. You could watch it from her website or on facebook, that I chose her website will soon become apparent.
You can still watch the video, but for some perverse reason, only through a facebook app.
This app requires the following:
What is basic information?
Well its is actually quite a long list: name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information you made public.
All handed over with a single click.
Now you may be happy to see all this information handed over to who knows where, to do as they please, but what of your friends? If you have no concern for your own privacy, do you not have an obligation to respect that of your friends, did you ask each and everyone if it was OK that their name be passed to this app?
But just when you think it can get no worse, what else can the app do or gain access to?
Any posts the app may make to your timeline, the default is public, ie anyone can see. An example of this is The Guardian app, everyone can see what you are looking at at The Guardian. The Guardian came in for a lot of criticism, which thy duly ignored.
But it should be noted that this privacy setting, default public, only controls what the app does on your timeline, it does not control what happens within the app, who has access to the information. It does not control or set who can see your activity within the app itself or when you are tagged within the app by someone else.
Pause and reflect for a moment. If you were filling out a form on a website, I think you would baulk at providing all this information, and at the very least you know where it is going, who is collecting it, or you think you know.
But do you know with an app, who is behind the app, what are they collecting this information for?
On a website, there is often an assurance that this information will not be shared with anyone else.
Those whose personal data has just been bought by facebook for a $1 billion probably thought that. Now please do not tell me you thought facebook were paying a billion dollars for something a couple of competent software engineers could knock out in a few weeks, something that a handful of software designers did knock out in a few weeks.
- Facebook, Instagram, Google, and the Monopoly Fallacy
- A billion reasons to beware of the latest dotcom bubble
- Don’t want Facebook to have more of your data? Here’s how to download and delete your Instagram account
Pause and reflect again. Would you hand this information over to a stranger who stops you in the street? You probably would not hand over even your e-mail address or telephone number.
Going back to my original example, this is a lot of information to hand over merely to watch what was streamed on Earth Day.
And who is collecting this information, what do they want it for, what are they going to do with it?
If it is Imogen Heap, then why not a form to fill out on her website?
If you wish to be kept informed of what she is doing, then fine, you hand over your e-mail address and she sends you a newsletter.
I have raised this with Imogen Heap, asked that she makes this film footage available without having to go through facebook. I can see no reason why not, it was possible to watch live on the night on her website without going through facebook.
I await her response.
Facebook is a walled garden. To gain access to the delights within your are forced to pay with your digital soul at the gate.
The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
In an interview with The Guardian, Brin warned there were “very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world”. “I am more worried than I have been in the past,” he said. “It’s scary.”
The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry’s attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of “restrictive” walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.
The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behind Google’s partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns about censorship and cyber-attacks. He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. “I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle,” he said.
He said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, but warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and balkanising the web.
“There’s a lot to be lost,” he said. “For example, all the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers. You can’t search it.”
Brin’s criticism of Facebook is likely to be controversial, with the social network approaching an estimated $100bn (£64bn) flotation. Google’s upstart rival has seen explosive growth: it has signed up half of Americans with computer access and more than 800 million members worldwide.
Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. “You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive,” he said. “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”
He criticised Facebook for not making it easy for users to switch their data to other services. “Facebook has been sucking down Gmail contacts for many years,” he said.
Brin’s comments come on the first day of a week-long Guardian investigation of the intensifying battle for control of the internet being fought across the globe between governments, companies, military strategists, activists and hackers.
From the attempts made by Hollywood to push through legislation allowing pirate websites to be shut down, to the British government’s plans to monitor social media and web use, the ethos of openness championed by the pioneers of the internet and worldwide web is being challenged on a number of fronts.
In China, which now has more internet users than any other country, the government recently introduced new “real identity” rules in a bid to tame the boisterous microblogging scene. In Russia, there are powerful calls to rein in a blogosphere blamed for fomenting a wave of anti-Vladimir Putin protests. It has been reported that Iran is planning to introduce a sealed “national internet” from this summer.
Ricken Patel, co-founder of Avaaz, the 14 million-strong online activist network which has been providing communication equipment and training to Syrian activists, echoed Brin’s warning: “We’ve seen a massive attack on the freedom of the web. Governments are realising the power of this medium to organise people and they are trying to clamp down across the world, not just in places like China and North Korea; we’re seeing bills in the United States, in Italy, all across the world.”
Writing in the Guardian on Monday, outspoken Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei says the Chinese government’s attempts to control the internet will ultimately be doomed to failure. “In the long run,” he says, “they must understand it’s not possible for them to control the internet unless they shut it off – and they can’t live with the consequences of that.”
Amid mounting concern over the militarisation of the internet and claims – denied by Beijing – that China has mounted numerous cyber-attacks on US military and corporate targets, he said it would be hugely difficult for any government to defend its online “territory”.
“If you compare the internet to the physical world, there really aren’t any walls between countries,” he said. “If Canada wanted to send tanks into the US there is nothing stopping them and it’s the same on the internet. It’s hopeless to try to control the internet.”
He reserved his harshest words for the entertainment industry, which he said was “shooting itself in the foot, or maybe worse than in the foot” by lobbying for legislation to block sites offering pirate material.
He said the Sopa and Pipa bills championed by the film and music industries would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.
“I haven’t tried it for many years but when you go on a pirate website, you choose what you like; it downloads to the device of your choice and it will just work – and then when you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy,” he said.
Brin acknowledged that some people were anxious about the amount of their data that was now in the reach of US authorities because it sits on Google’s servers. He said the company was periodically forced to hand over data and sometimes prevented by legal restrictions from even notifying users that it had done so.
He said: “We push back a lot; we are able to turn down a lot of these requests. We do everything possible to protect the data. If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great … We’re doing it as well as can be done.”
I could not agree more with what Sergey Brin is saying, this creation by facebook of a net within the net, a walled garden, the only way to sample the delights within is to sell your digital soul at the gate.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If it is free, it is because you are the product on sale.
Watch carefully the next time you click a link from within facebook. You are diverted elsewhere, before going to the site you wish to visit.
Facebook deposits software on your computer which track what you do.
Activity within facebook is walled off from the outside world, forcing others to sell their digital soul at the gate. It is you who creates the content, not facebook. Facebook is merely the platform, but it is not a neutral platform.
There is a partial way around, little tunnels under the wall and into the garden.
If you use facebook for sharing photo albums, set those albums to public, and post the links outside facebook where they can be found and followed.
An elderly lady living in Lincolnshire had her Single Person Council Tax Allowance (discount on property tax for single person occupancy) stopped. [see You and Yours]
When she queried this with her local council North Kesteven she was told this was done on the basis of additional data. Adiditional data? This set alarm bells ringing. The lady queried what additional data? Getting information out of local councils who forget they are there to serve the public is always akin to getting blood out of a stone. She was told a check had been made on her with Experian, a credit rating agency, and that monitoring of her post showed another person was living with her.
There was no one else living with her. Her daughter who lives outside the UK uses her mother’s address as a post box for her mail.
Experian denied they were monitoring post, but freely admitted North Kesteven had asked for checks on people. Experian also volunteered that they were performing this service for more than 200 other councils and that other credit rating agencies were doing the same.
It is one thing for a local council to pursue possible fraud where they have got good grounds to believe there is fraud, it is quite another to trawl through innocent people in the hope it may throw up some fraud.
Police have to obtain a Search Warrant for very good reasons, they have to have grounds. They cannot simply wander into everyone’s homes in the hope they may find evidence of a few crimes being committed.
If a bank wishes to do a credit check on you, they have to obtain your written consent. The council was not offering a loan. The council did not seek written consent. Apparently a notice in a local paper that no one reads (and who reads the official notices at the back anyway) was deemed as obtaining consent.
If a bank does a credit check (and the information held is often wrong) the fact that they see flagged up a local council had done a credit check, they may wonder why, decide not to take the risk and refuse the loan.
It has yet it be answered why or how this lady’s mail was being monitored.
I have of late being getting mail for unknown persons, including a Mr Paito. Does this mean all these people are living in my house? Where are they, hidden away in my cellars? I suspect some scam is taking place.
Not many people realise local councils can quite legally mount electronic surveillance on their local citizens. They should never have been granted these powers as they were open to abuse, and that is exactly what has happened. Less than 5% are genuine investigations. Upset a senior official, highlight corruption and maladministration (which is rampant in local councils), challenge the council in Court, then there is a good chance you have been placed under electronic surveillance.
Filled out any forms? You will notice there is usually pages and pages of questions that have no relevance for the purpose of the form. They have no relevance. They are crude trawls for information. Only provide what is relevant. If told you have to fill out the rest, challenge it, ask for the relevant statutory authority. There is usually none.
Never give a phone number. Do people never pause and think, why do I get all these junks calls? I never get any. Why? Because I do not hand out my phone number.
Councils are covered by Data Protection, but one would not think so. They are quite caviller in handing personal information to third parties without client consent.
I have direct personal experience of dishonest council officials knowingly passing on confidential client information to equally dishonest third parties. I am still waiting for these dishonest officials to be prosecuted for what is at the end of the day a criminal offence. They are still in post.
What personal information was handed to the credit reference agencies? At a guess: Name, address, date of birth.
Individuals are also caviller with their personal information. They post on facebook: date of birth, place of birth, school, university, partner etc etc. All should be removed, but I suggest first post false information to overwrite the databases then remove.
We have become used to CCTV monitoring our every move. It has nothing to do with crime. If it has, why do town centres like Guildford become no go areas Friday and Saturday nights when drunken thugs run rampage, the town centres not safe for decent folk to walk at night?
In Aberdeen the local council is monitoring the visitors to a tower block. Newham, one of the London Rotten Boroughs, requires a register to be kept of visitors to tower blocks. Even the Sun was outraged, not a rag renowned for its concerns with privacy and human rights.