Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Official Advises Using Fake Details On Social Networks
another random user writes "A senior government official has sparked anger by advising internet users to give fake details to websites to protect their security. Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones. He said names and addresses posted on social networking sites 'can be used against you' by criminals.
... 'When you put information on the internet do not use your real name, your real date of birth,' he told a Parliament and the Internet Conference in Portcullis House, Westminster. 'When you are putting information on social networking sites don't put real combinations of information, because it can be used against you.' But he stressed that internet users should always give accurate information when they were filling in government forms on the internet, such a tax returns."
What about in the U.S., where the corporations ARE the government?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The social networks are getting smarter, and even if you don't give them the information, they may already have it. Unless you're doing this and not associating with anyone who knows you in real life, they will be able to match you up to your real self.
And that is a considered a felony hacking crime in some countries.
You shouldn't (always) trust the government either.
Are more likely to be accidentally left in a pub by an MP on an unencrypted laptop than to be gained illegitimately from my Facebook account.
The other story here is that in response some whiny bitch of a Labour MP said she was shocked that a government worker would dare make a suggestion that we try and protect our privacy and anonymity because anyone doing so is obviously a cyber bully and has something to hide.
Which reminds me once again why I don't know if it's worth even voting next election because it's a choice between spoilt milionaires who were born with a silver spoon yet still want more and seem to spend more time legislating about what furry animals they can kill next rather than doing much of actual value, and fascists that want to control every aspect of our lives and pay us enough benefits to bankrupt the country if we can't be arsed to work.
Honestly, for once a government official speaks sense, and still it gets turned into party political bollocks trying to take a swipe at them over it.
This guy, whoever he is, for PM. He's made the most sense of any government worker I've ever seen.
Dear faux-outraged MPs...
Don't worry. Everyone already does this. Your precious little databases of everything, everywhere, already contain 100% pure unadulterated shit (actually only 95% shit, but since you can't easily tell which morons gave real info, you can't trust any of it). So really, you haven't lost anything.
Boo-hoo. Back to social control the old fashioned way - Poisoning kids' minds via the school system, and having the boys in blue damage the minds of those that escape with some shreds of individuality intact.
Am I the only one who does this already? I habitually lie, I mean I might add my real name if I *have* to, but far as Facebook is concerned I'm a Muslim communist who lives in Pyongyang north Korea.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
If a company wants your real information, they should pay you for it.
You are being exposed to greater risk for each copy of your information that is out there. Not only of identity theft and other scams, but of being targeted by more advertising that can waste your time. Spam is out; the new spam is like those ads on Facebook for products tangentially relevant to your life, but usually irrelevant.
Even more dangerous is that people are able to correlate information from different sources and form a good profile of how you live, work and shop. Spokeo.com is a prime example of this.
If I could do it again, I'd use fake information from day one. In the information age, it's better to be invisible than a known quantity.
It's possible that Andy Smith isn't his real name.
Yes, bad ones.
Social Networks are just the tip of the iceberg - there are vast databases out there used by corporations to better understand their customers. Supermarkets and banks for example will know just about everything there is to know. If someone is stupid enough to post so much personal information on a social site that can then be used to comprise their identity, then that is a problem but one shared by the user... but if an organization fails to secure financial data, gets hacked and that information is used to exploit users, that is potentially more serious. Or if Facebook, Google or whoever are selling user information with users consent to anyone who will pay, no one seems interested. Yet the latter doesn't seem to be discussed to the same degree. It is not just about telling people to obfuscate, to "make stuff up" we need some good privacy laws that protect individuals and their data.
the only place I can think of this possibly being true is iran on the basis of censorship, but not by law. Pretty sure that as far as the rest of the world goes you are full of shit.
In some places it's a federal offence to give incorrect information or conceal your identity, in others it may not be an offence but it puts you among the terrorists and their suspicious behaviour bringing you into increased scrutiny and making it more likely that the authorities will start harassing you once they do find out who you are.
As long as you're okay with that, no problem.
Wow, who would put real information on sites like Facebook, MySpace etc... If your going to put real details up use a site like LinkedIn, anywhere else if someone needs to know who you are then you can take it offline. The security risk of putting your info online is huge.
That's a pretty suspicious name for this sort of thing...
Between this and the Aussies recommending IP proxies, this is a serious threat to governments' perceived integrity. Some people might take it as a government change from neutrality, toward a pro-citizens position, directly in opposition to all the various parties who wish toi harm that government's citizens.
Are you sure you want your government to openly declare that it's on your side? They might no longer be trusted to always sell you out whenever convenient. And if they're not trusted, their candidates might not get paid, and you might end up being forced to vote on candidates' positions, instead of based on who has the best ad campaign.
Be careful what you ask for.
And I'm sure you can easily find for us the specific laws in question?
Ok...
> ...such as government ones."
ROFL.
Better yet, only give details to trusted sites. Don't tell the untrusted ones anything.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Finally a little sane advice on the subject...
If you want your personal information kept safe, DON'T PUT IT ONLINE.
Someone should tell the 27 million Steam users born on January 1st that they should not use their real birthdays.
Obligatory song link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eIUOUfhoJ8
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony/all/
"The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.”"
Protecting security is paramount to the security protection agency in charge of defense. I suppose that in this day and age you really do need to protect your security.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
Translation: I'm a lazy entitled bastard who can't be arsed to use my own brain.
Just try following this advice the next time you have to deal with the government and see how far it gets you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Of course that means most of you cretins will step right up and
eat that pile of shit and you will even recommend it to your friends.
But you are all still eating shit.
It is important to concentrate all accurate information in the hands of the government overlords, and keep accurate info out of the hands of that greedy private sector.
They're paying (with their free service) through the sale of ads. Ad sales do not require personal information. Think of a newspaper ad, or TV commercial. While those are targeted, based on what section of the newspaper (sports costs more than politics) or type of program they're featured in, they are also anonymous.
Seriously, this is a revelation? Not to mention the only person "angered" was some douchey MP that likely has investments in social networks and online advertisers. Why else would she promote using real information? She (Goodman) is actually claiming that using false information promotes crime. Gawd.
Anyway, I was intelligent enough to refuse to provide real personal information to BBSes (all local public network for the neophytes out there...never mind the Internet...a global public network) since I started online in the early 1990's...and I was very young (under 13). If someone provides enough information to a social site to permit a theft of identity...they deserve it.
Perpetual naivete is ignorance, and widespread ignorance is social decay (how ironic)...for which I have little sympathy.
What, giving false information to random social networking sites is a "felony hacking crime"? Name one country where this is the case. Terms of Service are usually ridiculously overreaching works of corporate fantasy that conflict with many local laws - especially in the EU. Violating a corporation's Terms of Service is not "breaking the law" unless your action is actually illegal.
Finish the paragraph.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in limiting reach of the CFAA, said that violations of employee contract agreements and websites’ terms of service were better left to civil lawsuits.
"....people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones."
I think my irony meter just exploded.
"Do not trust those fiendish corporations that want to sell you things, Loyal Citizen Unit! Trust only the government with your personal information! We just want to put you in GitMo, not show you ads! Remember! Failure to report mutants and commies is treason! Keep your laser handy!"
The solution is not to fake the data, nor is it to try and restrict visibility.
The solution is to redefine social networks, and admit that your address, personal info beyond 'I like chocolate etc lulz' is not useful in a social site, and go on.
But that guts the social networks. They derive their revenue from being able to sell YOU. And they can only sell YOU if they can sell Y O U .
That means selling your home address, the car you drive, your income and financial details, your friends, your employer, what you *actually* do, vs what you say you like to do, and whether or not you are able to be influenced by the advertisers buying you.
The first solution to this is to pay you for your data.
The second soluuion is to hold the purveyors of your data genuinely responsible for misdeeds. Not slap on the wrist fines, but punitive, stockholder-impacting penalties, and then both punitive reporting and montioring. If you don't vhange the rules, you won't change the brhavior.
And punish their clients as well.
And none of this will happen for the forseeable future. Just as Do Not Track cannot work, this personal data drives revenue, and makes the 'free' as in beer Internet work. Without it, you subscribe to Facebook, and I am not at all sure that FB is worth $0.19/mo to anyone. Much less the true cost of operation.
So we either live with this, or get off the networks.
Now, the real crimes are when your state sells your drivers license info. That is sinful and wrong.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Labour MP Helen Goodman was "genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing." I'm genuinely shocked that a public official (internet security chief Andy Smith) could actually be this competent and give citizens valid, practical advice about protecting their privacy.
"I'm in the government. I lie every day, and you should to."
I thought posting false details is not only against the ToS, but is against the law. We're supposed to break the law to protect ourselves?
It's good, if incredibly obvious advice, to avoid giving real personal details to websites. But Mr. Smith is still too trusting, as he includes government and "large commercial" sites as places where it's OK to be honest. I disagree, particularly with the large commercial sites. They are more likely to combine your information with data from other sources, and are therefore even riskier than mom-and-pop sites.
just in fail countries like the USA, Iran, ...!
Right, and this tells me I can't violate TOS with a private company .... where exactly? If you actually read the text you provided, you'll see that it doesn't, not even indirectly.
The remedy for violated ToS is termination of service, as is typically spelled out in the ToS themselves.
The 9th circuit only covers a fraction of the country. This ruling doesn't stop the DOJ from abusing the CFAA elsewhere.
Like Duh! When you get rid of all the shades and curtains in your house, and post your bank statement and personal information outside your front door, then you will be the kind of person who thinks it is OK to post correct personal details on public websites. Actually, I would support a law that makes it illegal to ask for them unless it is for a financial transaction. Freedom requires privacy.
I'm so glad I live in England right now!
Does not mean that cannot be tried in criminal courts.
Ok.. I read it. This refers to accessing computers, other than your own, without permission. It also covers accessing systems without having the proper permissions to do so. It does not cover logging into MySpace and saying your name is Bernie and your dog's name is Fred when you know this is not true. The reason I do not give any of my real information is due to fear. I am afraid of what a malicious person or group may do with my personal information. I am afraid of what could be done that could cause my family harm.
violating the tos revokes your rights to use the service, a service hosted on a remote computer. that means you exceede your granted permissions and are hacking.
The anger which the submission refers to is apparently felt by the companies whose terms are violated against.
Since I am the local geek... for years I have been advising my friends and family to put fake info into social networks.
Its best practice.
Right, and this tells me I can't violate TOS with a private company .... where exactly? If you actually read the text you provided, you'll see that it doesn't, not even indirectly.
The remedy for violated ToS is termination of service, as is typically spelled out in the ToS themselves.
Section (A)(5)(C) explicitly states that:
...intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss
Accessing a social media account using fake data can certainly be construed as accessing the system without authorization (you are not, in fact, the person whose every move and preference is tracked via this account). Potentially costing FB, G+, etc., etc. money by lying about who you are so they can't target you with their ads (Probably using an ad blocker will eventually be applied to this too), can cause a loss of ad sales revenue.
This must be prevented at all costs! Allowing people to give false names, addresses, birth dates, demographic and psychographic information is a direct assault on our economic system and is just as destructive to our corporate overlor..err..great nation as is a terrorist attack. If you ask me, five years in prison isn't enough for these lowlifes!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Isnt that both against the TOS for most services, and against the law in some areas?
Not that im against it, as you wouldnt see me posting real info either.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Duh? Ive been doing that since my first contact with the internet, on my 28.8 modem (yeah i started a bit late)
Me too.
Hey be my friend http://www.facebook.com/emmanuel.goldstein.509
Ciao
I built my own social network where you are supposed not to give personal info, have a look a it here:
www.cratis.eu
NOTE: for the time being it's only in Portuguese, I will release an English version within 2 months.
I thought everyone knew this already!
"Andy Smith".. sounds like a fake name to me
Wow, I've probably committed thousands of felonies, then.
How funny. I already do this to reduce the chance of identity theft. I call it poisoning the well.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Always give false, inaccurate information to anyone who asks. And lots of it too !
As for giving accurate information to the government. They're the very last people I would give "real" information.
Fuck data mining. Fuck the system.
Let's have some fun :)
Accessing a social media account using fake data can certainly be construed as accessing the system without authorization (you are not, in fact, the person whose every move and preference is tracked via this account). Potentially costing FB, G+, etc., etc. money by lying about who you are so they can't target you with their ads (Probably using an ad blocker will eventually be applied to this too), can cause a loss of ad sales revenue.
Actually they can still target you under a fake identity, so that one wouldn't work so well.
I'll give you that they could *attempt* to make a case on such a basis. Certainly we've seen that twisted in some prosecutions of "hackers". Whether a prosecutor would go along with it in this context, and whether it would even survive preliminary motions is another story altogether.
The U.S. is the only country I know of where violating TOS is a felony.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
And that is a considered a felony hacking crime in some countries.
I seriously doubt that facebook are going to sue their millions of under 14 year old users who post fake birthdays somehow.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
violating the tos revokes your rights to use the service, a service hosted on a remote computer. that means you exceede your granted permissions and are hacking.
Bollocks, all a service like Facebook can do is ban that user/username.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Muhaa muhaa haaa
Actually they can still target you under a fake identity, so that one wouldn't work so well.
I'll give you that they could *attempt* to make a case on such a basis. Certainly we've seen that twisted in some prosecutions of "hackers". Whether a prosecutor would go along with it in this context, and whether it would even survive preliminary motions is another story altogether.
I see that my sarcasm has eluded you. My apologies for any confusion. The thrust of what I was saying is that it would be ridiculous to try to bring any kind of action (civil or criminal) in a situation like that. Then again, perhaps we will go down that road. That would be quite frightening -- having to pay damages or even go to jail for creating a social networking account with a fake name.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
No. They can file charges of felony hacking as well. This is rare, but it has happened.