Letter: Privacy and security in the cloud and at Wi-Fi hotspots

I largely agree with John Harris's analysis (Why hackers and spooks want our heads in the cloud, 26 April), but his fixation with the idea of "cloud computing" is misplaced. "Cloud computing" is just another way of describing the "back end". We have had back ends in one form or another since computer-based systems were invented. Hackers from the criminal world and state-sponsored intelligence communities were just as active before the term "cloud computing" was popularised as they are now. The only real difference is one of scale.

Harris picking on Google was, of course, entirely justified. However, governments are not necessarily always going to be allies of big hi-tech companies. For example, in the last month alone the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that it has entered into a binding consent decree under which Google has agreed to submit to a biennial independent audit of its privacy practices for the next 20 years. That is half as long again as the company has existed. And then two weeks after that the FTC also announced it was thinking about reviewing Google's potential monopoly dominance of the search engine market in the US, where it claims between 63% and 72% of the market. In Europe Google's share is over 90%. This is one reason why the European commission is already doing the same.

John Carr

London

•?Your article (Public Wi-Fi users risk identity theft as fraudsters create 'Evil Twin' fake hotspots, 26 April) served readers well in alerting them to the fact that care must be taken to preserve the security of user details when accessing the internet via Wi-Fi. What was less clear was the fact that they can protect their data by taking relatively simple steps.

First, anyone accessing the internet via Wi-Fi should make sure to look for the locked padlock symbol before entering login or other personal details. This symbol should appear at the bottom right-hand side of the web page you have accessed, or in the address bar. If it isn't there, think twice before using the page you have called up and beware of entering any confidential data. Second, if you are on a Wi-Fi service other than your own one at home, and you want to enter financial or other sensitive information, visit only sites that begin with "https" on every page (some use "https" only at login). These sites are more secure.

Users should also consider our free BT Openzone virtual private network download; this creates a secure link between devices and hotspots. Customers can find information on this and other aspects of security at www.btopenzone.com/help/security. At BT, we are proud to have provided the UK with more than 2.5m Wi-Fi hotspots. We take seriously the need to protect the security of people's data.

Chris Bruce

Chief executive officer, BT Openzone

View the original article here

READ MORE » Letter: Privacy and security in the cloud and at Wi-Fi hotspots

An abortion ruling that puts the privacy of women at risk | Kate Smurthwaite

Following a recent ruling at the information tribunal that will allow late abortion figures to be released, vulnerable bereaved parents and their clinicians are being put at risk of being doorstepped by tabloid journalists, or forced into lengthy and expensive legal battles.

The Department of Health had argued that while data on the medical grounds for termination of pregnancies after 24 weeks should be provided, it was in the interest of patient and practitioner confidentiality to aggregate conditions affecting 10 or less cases. More detailed breakdowns would be made available, aggregated over five or 10 years.

Importantly, the challenge to the DH's stance does not come from a neutral academic research body in need of clearer data for medical research. It comes from the ProLife Alliance, an overtly anti-choice campaign group with a clear and stated agenda to completely end the provision of abortion services in the UK. Combined with information already in the public domain, the details released could help identify women having late-term abortions and make them vulnerable to harassment by anti-abortion campaigners and tabloid journalists. This is a travesty of justice.

Harriet S (not her real name), a woman in her 30s, told me: "You don't get to six or seven months of pregnancy with a child you're feeling kicking and then decide you're going to terminate for trivial reasons. There are extremely serious conditions, many of which are terminal. In my case, it wasn't a question of if the baby survived but of when it died." It's obvious how much her late-term abortion has affected her when she adds, "We had painted the nursery."

I've changed Harriet's name, of course, to allow her to tell her story without risk of being identified. But the ruling means that she, others like her and the clinicians who support these women could have their identities exposed.

In 2009, there were 136 abortions in the UK among women who had passed 24 weeks of pregnancy. Numbers are fairly consistent – around the 130 mark each year. The range of conditions involved is very wide, predominantly involving a variety of brain and cardiac abnormalities; most common foetal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, are typically revealed earlier in pregnancy at the 12 or 20-week scan. As such, many conditions will be listed with only one or two cases a year, effectively providing one individual woman's medical record.

Single tick-box categories fail to provide a real understanding of cases anyway. Many conditions may interact with other medical problems or known genetic issues within a family. Others exist on a spectrum, or can be symptoms of more serious underlying conditions.

When similar information was leaked in 2001, a court case was brought by Church of England vicar Joanna Jepson against doctors accused of performing a late termination on grounds of a cleft lip and palate. No mention was made of the fact that the condition exists across a wide range of severity and can indicate an underlying genetic problem. The details of the case were never made public but it was immediately thrown out of court on the grounds of "no case to answer".

In the wake of the Jepson case, some clinics felt compelled to establish ethics committees, leaving parents reeling from bad news waiting up to two weeks for permission to proceed with a termination. Ultimately, we are creating a situation where clinicians feel they have to justify their decisions on a case-by-case basis to the national media. There is also concern that reduced confidentiality will make women more reluctant to participate in medical research that could lead to earlier diagnosis and better preventative and therapeutic treatment options for serious medical conditions.

To date, the ProLife Alliance's tactics have included sending plastic models of foetuses to MPs, operating "helplines" intended to mislead women about the risks of abortion and holding vigils outside family-planning centres. It seems clear that any opportunity to launch a legal challenge on any aspect of abortion or to kick up a media storm will be seized upon.

Jane Fisher is the director of Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC), the UK's only non-directive organisation supporting women who are given diagnoses of foetal abnormality. She tells me that:

"ARC has regular contact with women who are given the devastating news late in pregnancy that their baby has a potentially lethal or severely disabling condition. Reeling from the shock of this news they face the life-changing decision about whether to continue or end their wanted pregnancy. It is a very traumatic time and they need to be enabled to make the decision that's right for them with an absolute guarantee of privacy and confidentiality. These are also challenging and distressing situations for clinicians. All parties involved in such harrowing circumstances need our trust, support and compassion, rather than suspicion or judgement."

This ruling will do nothing to advance the wellbeing of those involved in decisions around late termination. All it will do is leave them paranoid that whatever normality they've managed to find after the loss of a child could suddenly be ripped away.

View the original article here

READ MORE » An abortion ruling that puts the privacy of women at risk | Kate Smurthwaite

Chatroulette Posts Lawyer’s Notes In Privacy Policy For Your Entertainment And Edification

Note to startups: Don’t publish your lawyer’s notes about the various ways you may or may not profit off of user data.

Video chat site Chatroulette  seems to have just done just that with its privacy policy, publishing lawyer’s notes like …

“[Andrey, does Chatroulette intend to share the personally identifiable information of users with third party companies for them to send direct marketing or promotional materials to your users e.g. name, email address, postal address etc.? If not, please delete this Section 5.]“

And the precious …

“[Andrey: Do you have any reasonable security measures in place to protect any personal information you may collect e.g. SSL? If so, keep in the bracketed language but remove the brackets. If not, please delete the bracketed language as Chatroulette should not state that it has security procedures in place if this is not currently the case.]“

– right within the policy itself.

The “Andrey” being addressed here is presumably the site’s teenage founder Andrey Ternovskiy. [Note: I've been a huge fan of Chatroulette since I first reviewed it, but this was too good not to post. ]

I mean it’s standard procedure to get notes like this from your lawyer to review, but not so standard to publish them. Those who want to take a look at the suggested policy revisions can check them out here, but act fast, as they probably won’t be up for very long.

Click images for a larger version.

READ MORE » Chatroulette Posts Lawyer’s Notes In Privacy Policy For Your Entertainment And Edification