It's not cyber-bullying, it's cyber-rape. Imagine you receive an email containing a naked picture of you in a sexual position. You remember, that one that you sent your lover. The email is linked to a site where more images of your naked and vulnerable body are displayed followed by hateful comments, complete strangers tearing you apart, a cybermob virtually raping you. The site includes your full name, your home address, your contact information. Some of the commenters threaten to come to your home and rape you.
With the school year back in full swing, it's a great time to revisit a topic that affects students, parents and teachers equally: social media. While social media use continues to grow and becomes increasingly common place, it is nonetheless an area of contention, particularly when it comes to kids -- both in and outside of the classroom.
But a new battle is raging, and as pleased as I am to see so many people outraged by a young actress' right to sexual privacy being violated, I can't help but ask; why such an outcry for Jennifer Lawrence? It has always been disgusting to see so many young women, celebrity or no, be abused by the absurdity of non-consensual pornography, so why are we choosing to be outraged now? Shouldn't we have brought this up a long time ago?
The risk is, we don't know when Facebook, or any app, actually uses these permissions, and I don't think we want to find out after-the-fact that it's been recording me since I installed it, just to sell to advertisers. So until Google improves the Android architecture by allowing us more control over what permissions an app can access at any given time, it comes down to trust.
Global attitudes on spying shift dramatically when the targets of the state's vast monitoring apparatus are suspected terrorists. Not surprisingly, a majority agree that it's acceptable to scrutinize the communications of those who would potentially do harm. Unfortunately, though, our governments have failed to show that they are capable of doing the job with care and precision.
Minister MacKay's lack of respect for Canadians is symptomatic of a government with a terrible track record on privacy issues. They continue to resist calls to take common sense steps to rein in Canada's out-of-control spy agency CSEC -- an agency that just 8 per cent of Canadians trust with their private information, according to a recent poll. The CSEC was caught red-handed collecting hugely sensitive information about law-abiding Canadian air travellers, and storing our private information in giant, insecure databases to be shared with their U.S. partners at the NSA.
There are few rights more important in any healthy democracy than the right to privacy. When citizens believe they are being watched, their willingness to engage in democratic debate is eroded, which in turn undermines our whole democratic process. Yet we clearly have a privacy deficit in this country.
Are you worried about what federal political parties are doing with their ever-growing stashes of your personal information? Because you should be. Federal political parties' databases and all the personal information they contain are still not subject to any law (except for some information related to the voters register).
It looks like the rumble against the government's Online Spying Bill C-13 is turning into a roar. We hope that pressure from Canadians will encourage Conservative MPs to start speaking out about the hugely unpopular blanket spying measures in Bill C-13. They should put both public and private pressure on Defence Minister MacKay to split the bill and remove the online spying provisions. Tens of thousands of Canadians are now speaking out to demand an end to online spying, and new privacy rules to safeguard law-abiding Canadians from government surveillance. It's never been more important to keep up the pressure.
This morning I spoke before The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and shared my thoughts on Bill C-13. I know there are concerns with C-13 and believe me, if there was something better on the table I'd be all over it. There isn't, not that I can see. Police have to have the ability to act fast when it comes to cyber-crime or their response is pointless. Our children's rights and privacy is already being violated -- violated by some of the sickest people you can imagine. If it's a choice between them and the police I'm siding with the police.
The current state of government surveillance, the massive intrusion into our privacy, is not going to change anytime soon. A chance to move the debate constructively forward was missed. State surveillance, the collection of metadata, and some type of infringement of our right to privacy is going to continue. The only questions are to what extent and under what circumstances -- the law's never-ending search for proportionality. That is the debate that needs to be had, urgently.
On Monday afternoon, the government's reckless online spying Bill C-13 came a small step closer to becoming the law of the land. It didn't get through without a lively debate which saw many MPs speak out strongly about how Bill C-13 would enable a wide range of government authorities to spy on the private lives of Canadians.
There's nothing wrong with raising concerns about respect for privacy with regard to certain commercial practices. But the quantity and quality of data collected, the use to which they are put, and the potential violations of respect for privacy have nothing in common with those of governments and their spy agencie
It's worth noting perhaps that my career has been around privacy and security, and so this really flustered me. After years of loyal service, when I've already provided AirBnB with access to my home address, phone number, and social media accounts, they've taken it a step further and decided that wasn't enough.
A B.C. lawyer and privacy advocate is raising questions about the ways CCTV cameras and other technologies are being used to keep track of seniors. ...
Imagine that I took all the e-mails and messages that I have ever written, as well as recordings of all Skype calls that I have ever made, and gave them to a group of strangers. Should we trust the priorities these strangers will have in 10 years, or 20 or 50? Should we trust that this immense cache of data will not become a commodity, traded to other governments that exist now, or will exist in the future?