CarrierIQ Hires Former Verizon Counsel As Chief Privacy Officer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CarrierIQ Hires Former Verizon Counsel As Chief Privacy Officer

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 9, 2012 @12:55AM from the throw-a-few-executives-at-it dept.

Trailrunner7 writes, quoting Threat Post: "Carrier IQ, a startup heavily bruised last fall by harsh criticism of its handset diagnostic software, today announced it's hired a high-profile lawyer as its Chief Privacy Officer. Magnolia Mansourkia Mobley, a CIPP and former Verizon executive, will be tasked with quickly broadening the company's focus on consumer privacy. She also was named the company's General Counsel. The company became the flashpoint in a heated controversy after initial reports its analytics software, embedded in some 150 mobile phones, was capable of gathering a great deal of personal data without the customer's consent."

45 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google Analytics by ScreamS · 2012-05-09 01:00 · Score: 0

I hope that people and privacy advocates would look at Google Analytics too. It is basically the same CarrierIQ is, only made for webpages. And Google has been abusing it for almost 10 years already.
1. Re:Google Analytics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  get noscript or an equivalent extension and block it, waiting for legislation that benefits the common man has never ever been a good idea in the history of mankind.
2. Re:Google Analytics by ScreamS · 2012-05-09 01:13 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  get noscript or an equivalent extension and block it, waiting for legislation that benefits the common man has never ever been a good idea in the history of mankind.
  Does this mean that I should be always looking for if someone is going to kill me, rape me, run over me, scam me or do other bad things to me?
  
  Frankly, I don't want to live in that kind of world. We have laws for good reasons.
3. Re:Google Analytics by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-09 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  There's a very big difference between s/w collecting information on a private communications device that you own, and a website choosing to run a service on their own site.
4. Re:Google Analytics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Great job equating Google Analytics with murder and rape. You should have shoved in a reference to nazis somewhere in there for perfect troll score. "Oh lawless world, where corporations (gasp!) can see you've visited a public site which decided to use their tracking to see where and how much visitors do come from!"
  And yes, we have laws against robbery, scams and others - do you leave your doors unlocked and tell strangers your SSN and mother's maiden name? Laws protect you, after all, right?
  Anyways, you don't really have any "privacy" on public internet sites. You should first establish _why_ and _how_ GA is abuse, then go campaigning.
  Not that I expect a meaningful answer from a sockpuppet troll, but anyways.
5. Re:Google Analytics by Shoten · 2012-05-09 01:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I hope that people and privacy advocates would look at Google Analytics too. It is basically the same CarrierIQ is, only made for webpages. And Google has been abusing it for almost 10 years already.
  No it isn't...it isn't even close to the same thing. CarrierIQ was capturing keystrokes, even though they said otherwise. CarrierIQ was something you could not block or neuter all all, unlike Google Analytics. A subset of what CarrierIQ does is slightly similar to what Google Analytics does, if instead of allowing the cellular carrier to diagnose mobile device issues you think in terms of a website owner looking at the traffic patterns within their own site, but that's not the subset that anyone cares about. And Google Analytics is NOT a decade old. This function used to be served by companies like Websense and other early SAAS providers that did analytics on 'stickiness' and figuring out which pages users were most likely to be at when they left a site. The analytics are provided for the site owner, so that they can look at how traffic patterns demonstrate the effectiveness of their site. Furthermore, the way Google does it supports using an "A/B" approach to site improvement (pick up this month's copy of Wired magazine to learn more about that), whereby you give random users slightly different versions of the same site and compare the results to see which is more effective...and that is HUGELY helpful.
  Nor is Google Analytics 'abuse'. How do we know this? Because privacy advocates HAVE been looking at it.
  I know, I know...it's suprising to find out that privacy organizations have been looking at a small boutique shop like Google; it's easy to think you were ahead of the curve with such a far-reaching idea as "hey, let's look at Google's handling of privacy matters!" Guess you just got to the idea a few minutes behind the very most bleeding-edge, eh? :)
  Learn what something is before you get on a soapbox about how awful it is or how it's used. Here you go, here's a link. It was really hard to find, too.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
6. Re:Google Analytics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  What's the difference between a web server running code on your system and a carrier doing it?
7. Re:Google Analytics by ScreamS · 2012-05-09 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Google Analytics also captures keystrokes and mouse movements. Everyone who has used it extensively knows this. Visitor Recording shows this same in different system.
8. Re:Google Analytics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  NoScript plus RequestPolicy FTW! :-D
  Then throw in Ghostery, AdBlock Plus, Better Privacy, and HTTPS Everywhere to clean up the edge-cases.
9. Re:Google Analytics by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-09 02:22 · Score: 2
  
  What's the difference between a web server running code on your system and a carrier doing it?
  There wouldn't be much, which is completely and entirely irrelevant since the web site would be running the code on their own server and not your system.
10. Re:Google Analytics by Luckyo · 2012-05-09 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Google analytics can be easily blocked, as/and it doesn't live in your system as an effective trojan.
  It's not a good thing, but that's why you simply block it. Ghostery does this just fine for example.
11. Re:Google Analytics by tlhIngan · 2012-05-09 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Google analytics can be easily blocked, as/and it doesn't live in your system as an effective trojan.
  It's not a good thing, but that's why you simply block it. Ghostery does this just fine for example.
  Actually, you can't just block Google Analytics anymore - a lot of sites are purposely redirecting links THROUGH Google Analytics - you click the link, a javascript runs that passes the URL to Google which then redirects you to the next page.
  It's quite ingenious - when a browser gets a 302 redirect, it preserves Referer information (so the website gets the originating page), AND the webmaster gets the click passed through Analytics without Analytics screwing up the Referer.
  NoScript fixes this so you can block google-analytics.com completely and still browse the web - NoScript Surrogate Scripts for Google Analytics.
  The other option is to opt-out of analytics and trust Google...
12. Re:Google Analytics by Dishevel · 2012-05-09 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Umm. Wow.
  Even with laws it is a good idea to pay attention to what you are doing.
  Know what you are signing.
  Not believe everything you hear.
  Do not walk alone in the dark in a ghetto.
  Carry protection.
  Stay aware.
  It is always best to protect yourself and then when you fail maybe a law or a cop will happen to help you out.
  As GP stated correctly. Just waiting around for some government to protect you is a really bad way to go through life.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
13. Re:Google Analytics by plover · 2012-05-09 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  Google analytics is all about gathering and selling marketing data. Providing usability data is useful when it comes time to convince site owners that they should use it, but that doesn't pay the bills in Mountain View.
  Google wants to know every user habit related to on line sales. They know what ads you've seen. They know what keywords you searched on prior to making a purchase. They know which sites you visited prior to the purchase. And if you use Google Checkout or Google Wallet, they even know what you paid for it, and from whom you bought it.
  If I'm an advertiser of similar products, that's the stream I want to hitch a ride on. And Google will happily sell me that info.
  As a consumer, this SUCKS. Any legitimate searching or research I do is being subtly manipulated by self-interested advertisers. Any original research I do is being recorded, and countermeasures are being deployed to ensure I won't get fair results tomorrow.
  
  --
  John
3-CPO ? by americamatrix · 2012-05-09 01:03 · Score: 2

Chief Privacy Officer. CPO. They really should just toss a 3 in the front!

Haha, yesss 3-CPO!

Ahh Star Wars :)

-americamatrix
1. Re:3-CPO ? by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-09 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Chief Privacy Officer. CPO. They really should just toss a 3 in the front! Haha, yesss 3-CPO! Ahh Star Wars :) -americamatrix
  It's C-3PO, you insensitive clod!
2. Re:3-CPO ? by Coisiche · 2012-05-09 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  How about...
  Chief Prodigiously Prudent Privacy Officer, or C-3PO for short.
  *ba-dah* *ba-dah* *tish*
3. Re:3-CPO ? by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-09 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Chief Pretend Privacy for Publicity Officer
4. Re:3-CPO ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  1) Not funny
  2) Wrong in any case.
  3) Leaving your name when it's already at the top... Jerk.
5. Re:3-CPO ? by davester666 · 2012-05-09 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well C-3PO is trademarked, and I'm sure this guy is a corporate robot, so it's the same field...
  And this guy is there to broaden the companies focus on consumer privacy. Namely, their focus on violating that privacy as much as possible, without it becoming public knowledge.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Verizon executive by SirGarlon · 2012-05-09 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Putting a former Verizon executive in charge of customer privacy is like putting Bernie Madoff in charge of SEC compliance.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
1. Re:Verizon executive by Hatta · 2012-05-09 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  She's not in charge of customer privacy. She's in charge of making excuses when CarrierIQ violates customer privacy. It's a good fit.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hi, mr. Sockpuppeteer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:10 · Score: 0

Really, is being so obvious your job requirement? I mean, you get a fresh sockpuppet and immediately expose it. Almost feels like you were hired by Google so they'll be seen as victims of smear campaign and to devalue any anti-Google sentiments.
Our privacy was violated! by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-09 01:11 · Score: 2

They violated our privacy! Let's talk about it on Facebook and Twitter!

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Our privacy was violated! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  YMMD! Talking about privacy issues on Twitter or on Facebook is like selling your phonebook to Apple, Google, Microsoft, NSA or similar.
Re: C-3PO? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:15 · Score: 0

Shouldn't that be C-3PO? Still not funny.
Garfield by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:15 · Score: 0

It's like putting Garfield in charge of the cookie jar.
1. Re:Garfield by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  It's like putting Garfield in charge of the cookie jar.
  You see, that actually works better. Because Verizon's biggest problems were always customer service and unethical billing, not privacy - just like Garfield's biggest problem was lasagna and not cookies. GP forgot that a joke like that is only funny if it's accurate.
2. Re:Garfield by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  We were working up a theme here. And you broke it, you dastard!
3. Re:Garfield by SirGarlon · 2012-05-09 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  You see, that actually works better. Because Verizon's biggest problems were always customer service and unethical billing, not privacy
  Really? Perhaps you are unaware of Big Telecom's cooperation in NSA's domestic surveillance programs.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
4. Re:Garfield by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  It's like putting Anonymous Coward in charge of your moderation system.
5. Re:Garfield by Art+Popp · 2012-05-09 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  In a company stocked by Odies.
150 mobile phones? by Kyrt · 2012-05-09 01:49 · Score: 1

Shouldn't it be "embedded in some 150 mobile phone models"?
"Broadening focus" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 01:50 · Score: 0

"Broadening our focus" == focusing less on this one issue.
1. Re:"Broadening focus" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Just roll with it. Marketing and business drones have no idea what they're actually talking about. They just love to throw around buzzwords.
Too little too late... by Andy+Dodd · 2012-05-09 02:13 · Score: 1

As I understand it, as shipped, CIQ wasn't too bad - the problem was that carriers were allowed to modify and extend it, and extend it they did such that it collected more information, and the user-accessible shutoff present in as-shipped CIQ software never was seen in a deployed phone.
They can hire all the privacy lawyers they want - no one is ever again going to trust a carrier to implement their software properly, and any attempt to reinsert their software into a device WILL result in a shitstorm.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
1. Re:Too little too late... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  the user-accessible shutoff present in as-shipped CIQ software never was seen in a deployed phone.
  It was disabled by default on the iPhone and to enable it you had to agree to a new privacy policy where they described exactly what it did and to only use it temporarily if the carrier asked you to.
a german proverb by azalin · 2012-05-09 02:34 · Score: 1

There is a german proverb for things like this: "Den Bock zum Gärtner machen" not sure if a proper analogy exists in English. (Rough translation "Making a goat your gardener", doesn't have the ring though)
1. Re:a german proverb by Hatta · 2012-05-09 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  "A fox guarding the hen house" is probably the closest approximation.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:a german proverb by azalin · 2012-05-09 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Ah thanks, that was the one I was looking for.
Magnolia Mansourkia Mobley by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 04:29 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that is a real name.
Formerly known as "Steve" by sir-gold · 2012-05-09 05:46 · Score: 1

I think their new legal counsel used to be a man, because Magnolia Mansourkia Mobley totally sounds like a sex change name. No real woman would use a name like that unless she has delusions of royalty or something.
privacy model: dump Carrier IQ by swschrad · 2012-05-09 05:53 · Score: 1

alternative: customers, not carriers, get the keys to the kingdom. want them to diagnose dropped calls? click that button only. want them to follow your chemtrails? click that button.
and don't install any other buttons, and don't check any other parameters in the phone.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?