Blog Post

Companies overriding Safari browser privacy settings

Online privacy | Apple privacy — Stanford University has released a study documenting how Google and other companies overrode Safari users’ browser privacy settings. The WPF encourages Apple users to download the Firefox browser and use Firefox, if at all possible, instead of Safari. Firefox did not have the same problem, and it allows for additional privacy add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus which are helpful privacy-enhancing tools.

WPF says a “walk-out opt-out” is not enough for consumer protection

Facial recognition | Digital signage — The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments to the FTC today following up on Pam Dixon’s testimony at a December 2011 FTC facial recognition privacy workshop. The WPF comments noted that “A walk-out opt-out is not a viable way of managing consumer consent in the area of facial recognition or detection technologies.” The comments discussed the importance of recognizing the Face Print as a unique biometric, and also discussed the need for finding ways of consumer consent that are reasonable. Given the ubiquity of cameras in some retail and public spaces, just walking away will become less and less of an option for consumers going forward, the comments argued. The comments also included the WPF’s ground breaking report, The One-Way Mirror Society, and the joint Consumer Privacy Principles for Digital Signage.These principles were signed by the nation’s leading privacy and consumer groups.

US Supreme Court delivers opinion about GPS tracking

01/23/2012 GPS tracking | United States v. Jones — The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must get a warrant before using GPS devices to track criminal suspects. This case was narrow and dealt specifically with a GPS device physically attached to a suspect’s vehicle. The concurring opinion of Justice Sotomayor points out that the subtler issues of digital era tracking were not dealt with in this case, for example, cell phone tracking, web site tracking, etc. She wrote: “More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976).” She continued: “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”