Privacy Issues with Phones, Google Voice and other Options

This original post was from mashable or techcrunch...

Google Voice?
Mozilla Guy to Users: Leave Google, Switch to Bing
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 04:10 AM PST

You can start a company with the best intentions, but when that company grows into an enormous entity like Google, it starts being so important to itself that those intentions often take a back seat to company's ambitions.
After Google's CEO Eric Schmidt little talk about privacy, in which he basically said that only those who have something to fear (i.e. they've done something wrong) care about privacy, the reactions are coming in. Mozilla's director of community development Asa Dotzler invited users in a blog post to switch from Google to Bing, pointing out that Bing has a better privacy policy than Google.
Here's the part of Schmidt's speech that irked Dotzler:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
To this, Dotzler responds with a link that shows you how to switch Firefox's default search engine from Google to Bing. It's a big deal; Google has been Firefox's default search engine for years, and Mozilla has been largely financially dependent on Google. Having a high ranked Mozilla guy urge users to switch to Bing won't sit well with Google, but Google has traditionally been very careful when it comes to privacy issues. The question is: will they try to tone down Schmidt's words, or is this "we don't care" attitude part of Google's new privacy strategy?

Google Voice: 5 Reasons to Think Twice
1. Privacy

As is the case with many Google products, privacy is a hot topic within discussions of Google Voice. By using Google Voice to control all of your phone activity, you're exposing a vast amount of personal information to Google. Everything from whom you call to what you discuss--yes, even in hazy late-night text messages you yourself may not remember--is stored on Google's servers. Together with the other various data Google may have on you, all of that could create quite a portfolio.

Is Google suddenly going to publish your entire life on the Web? Of course not. Like other Google services, Google Voice is governed by a privacy policy that explains what can and can't happen with your data (and, I think it's safe to say, selling your 3 a.m. texts to Penthouse Forum is not one of the approved options).

Still, the data is in someone else's hands, and it could be used for certain purposes outside of your own personal perusal. Some privacy advocates have expressed concerns that Google Voice may lead to "increased profiling and tracking of users without safeguards." Whether that's a problem is largely up to you, and how comfortable you feel with the situation.

Lost in all the hooplah about the release of Google Voice is this disturbing fact: The service will give Google enormous amounts of information about the intimate details of your everyday life, including recordings of your voice mail and possibly your phone calls. Combined with what Google already knows about you, it could mean your privacy is at an end.

Google Voice, by all accounts, may be the best tool ever for managing your telephone communications. It routes all of your calls through a single number, and can then ring all of your phones simultaneously. You can manage your voice mail with it, including getting free transcripts of your calls. It includes free voice conferencing, inexpensive overseas calls, and plenty more. You'll also be able to record and store your calls online.

But all that information about your calls will be routed through Google. Google will know everyone who called you and when they called. They'll have records of your voice mail, and because they offer free transcription, it means they'll have not just the voice, but text of your calls as well. They'll have recordings of your phone calls --- and I would expect them to offer transcriptions of them as well, which means they'll have the transcriptions as well as your calls.

Above excerpt from computerworld: http://blogs.computerworld.com/google_voice_press_1_to_invade_your_privacy

Note that other options exist, including PhoneDynamo, iNumbr and LetsCallMe to name a few.

see complete article at: http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/13/google-voice-privacy-policy/

I've had a nagging frustration in my otherwise perfect relationship with Google Voice. The service systematically replaces my friend's phone numbers with their Google Voice numbers when they call, even when they aren't calling from Google Voice. Not only has this led to a lot of confusing and time wasting "how did you get my Google Voice phone number?" conversations, it is a clear violation of Google's own privacy policy.

Tech Crunch is reporting on Google Latitude. Similar to Buzz and e-mail, all the tools that Google provides get turned into opportunities for third parties to access you or information about you.

We suggest www.phonedynamo.com as an alternative to Google Voice, get real people helping you with customer service and real response and support.

From techcrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/18/google-warns-latitude-users-that-they-might-be-sharing-their-location/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)

Google Warns Latitude Users That They Might Be Sharing Their Location
45 Comments

Share
14
Buzz it
by Robin Wauters on Feb 18, 2010
Google appears to be getting a tad paranoid about its own privacy policies on the heels of the whole Google Buzz debacle.

The company apparently sent out an e-mail to some Latitude users this morning, warning them that the service might be giving away their location - which is kind of the whole point of the app - and asking them to check their settings.

Update: commenters tell us Google started sending out said e-mails a while ago, not today.

As a reminder, Google Latitude is a location-aware application that was specifically designed to let mobile phone users broadcast their location to certain people.

This is the e-mail, forwarded to us by Andrés Catalán:

---- Forwarded message ----
From:
Date: Feb 18, 2010 3:22 AM
Subject: You are using Google Latitude and reporting your location
To:

Hi,

To protect your privacy we would like you to know that Google Latitude is running on your Android-powered device and reporting your location.

If you didn't enable this or want to stop reporting your location please open the Maps app on your device. Go to 'Menu' > 'Latitude' > 'Privacy' and change your privacy settings.

Thanks,

Google Latitude Team

From Mashable:

"Google advertisers can now add click-to-call phone numbers to their mobile ads. The move expands the offering from just local advertisers to national advertisers."..

"Obviously the type of phone number advertisers employ will vary, with some businesses being more call-friendly than others, but we're certainly intrigued by the idea of searchers directly contacting advertisers. The mainstream adoption of social media by businesses has proven that customers are looking for more direct access to companies, so we're curious to see if this same idea translates in mobile ad form as well."

Hmm.. now Google knows who you call - and if you use Google Voice they make a transcription of your conversation. It may not be a call for alarm. Sometimes paranoia is just good thinking. In the case of Google, giving up all of our privacy to save a few pennies is like selling your soul to the devil.

e-mail - Google reads and delivers ads based on your personal content
phone communication - Google records and transcribes
ads - Google lets you call direct.

Find an e-mail alternative. Use outlook, or any service that isn't compiling as much personal and behavioral data about YOU.

Use a phone number service like Phone Dynamo (www.phonedynamo.com) or iNumbr (www.inumbr.com) - for a few bucks you have total control and privacy with your virtual phone number.

Don't participate in the Google Web. They are controlling all aspects of content search, retrieval, ranking and monetization. You can longer consider a content or retail play without first adjusting for the requirements and ramifications of an SEO and SEM world completely ruled by a single company.

If you read this blog regularly, you may note that there are often ads for "reverse look-up" services for phone numbers commonly being displayed as relevant ads.

This is interesting, because these are the very same services that should drive consumers to flexible, portable, safe, privacy numbers (virtual numbers) for use in the future.

The reverse look-up services are providing access to your identity, home address and helping outsiders stalk, market to you or steal your identity. There may be some good, positive uses for these services, but the ones that come to mind here are pretty high risk for average citizens.

Privacy numbers are a great way to go for anyone concerned about these issues. For about $7/month you can get a completely flexible option for an alternate phone number. And much less if you use a privacy number for business to mask your real number and can write off 40% at tax time.

User backlash is one thing, violating expectations of privacy and forcing privacy violating features on users without prior notification is another.

Google may offer free products, but any company that plans to make your communication behavior public and externalize links between you and other people without your consent is less than unethical. At least provide users notification and opportunity to migrate to another service before force feeding them potentially dangerous social networking algorithms.

Mashable covers this at: http://mashable.com/2010/03/17/ftc-privacy-roundtable/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+Mashable+(Mashable)

Here is an excerpt:

Earlier today, FTC commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour cited Google Buzz's "irresponsible conduct" at launch as an example of how companies are being too careless with consumer privacy and online data.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the remarks were made at a public roundtable on privacy-related matters hosted by the FTC, where Harbour made it clear that the FTC can and will take an active interest in protecting consumer privacy.

"The Commission will unfailingly step in to protect consumers where we believe the law has been violated, and that includes violations relating to privacy promises," she said.

The commissioner's remarks echo the sentiments of researcher Danah Boyd during her SXSW keynote, and the infuriated Gmail users who felt exposed when they were involuntarily following or being followed by their frequent e-mail contacts per the algorithm of Google Buzz's original auto-follow feature.

Google has since made major tweaks to Buzz, but Harbour believes the misfire is a symptom of a greater problem. She says: "This is turning into a dangerous game of 'copycat' behavior %u2026 Unlike a lot of tech products, consumer privacy cannot be run in beta."

There might be some great good in making yourself available and accessible to friends and business associates online. However, managing and controlling those relationships can be tricky - particularly if you want to control who can access you, by which means, and when.

This is why I advocate making information about yourself available, but only things that you can maintain through alias and manage with powerful tools. E-mail fits this bill, and virtual numbers make it possible to include your phone number with any online data set without fear of reverse look-ups. At least with a virtual number you can use Do Not Disturb, caller ID blocking and announcements so you know where a call is coming from before you take it.

Recently Facebook is crossing the line with data sharing (and most users aren't very savvy about data protection).

The German Minister of Consumer Protection has a privacy bone to pick with Facebook. I understand where she is coming from. At the same time, advocacy of consumer protection should include direct talk about the key pieces of data you can and can't share to protect yourself, and the tools and services that make it easy to be accessible with fear of losing your privacy forever.

Article: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868459#

Excerpt:
Mrs Aigner fired her slingshot after Facebook had said it might send data on members to hand-picked partners such as CNN and Yahoo! without consulting them first. The American way with data is not for Germany. In 1983 Germany's constitutional court elaborated a right to "informational self-determination", anchored in laws, monitored by officials and fiercely defended by activists. The Pirate Party, which champions digital freedom, won 2% of the vote in last year's federal election.

In German privacy wars, Mrs Aigner's party is normally cast as Goliath. She comes from the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian wing of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Both parties are keener to chase criminals and terrorists than to fuss over suspects' privacy. After the constitutional court overturned a law in March that required telecoms and internet firms to make records available to police, the CDU and CSU clamoured for a robust replacement. One reason the Pirate Party did well is that the previous government had passed a law to block child-pornography sites on the internet. That was a step to broader censorship, the new party argued.

Mrs Aigner's snarl at Mr Zuckerberg is designed to appeal to privacy partisans. In February she demanded that Google get residents' permission before showing their houses on its Street View service. Patrick Breyer, a lawyer, says the government has become more sensitive since the liberal Free Democrats joined the CDU/CSU in coalition. The new CDU interior minister, Thomas de Maizière, seems keener to balance security with privacy than his predecessor was. He talks to privacy activists and may even consider the idea of requiring firms and agencies to send out "data letters" telling people what information is collected about them.