EFF: Amazon, AT&T, and Snapchat Most Likely To Rat On You To the Gov't

jfruh (300774) writes "The EFF has released its annual "Who Has Your Back" report, which uses publicly available records to see which web companies do the most to resist government demands for your personal data, by requiring warrants and being transparent about requests received. Social media giants Facebook and Twitter scored quite well; Snapchat was at the bottom of the list, and Amazon and AT&T didn't do much better." Here's the report itself.

Comments

In my opinion,

[dale.furno]

Everyone outside my house is at the bottom of the list, and even some people in my house.

#1 rats

[russotto]

Banks. They rat you out to the government in every which way. Any given transaction is sent to the DEA and IRS just for starters. And of course the NSA gets everything by hook or by crook.

Re:#1 rats

[interkin3tic]

Yes, but most people don't use Bank of America to send nude pictures of themselves or set up questionably legal deals. They DO use snapchat for that *, and they do it because they think it's safe, confidential, and self-erasing. Thus the EFF is quite right to highlight that. Plus it does say "web services" which banks aren't really.

* Or so I have read. No one sends me nude pictures or drug deals.

Re:#1 rats

[lagomorpha2]

Yes, but most people don't use Bank of America to send nude pictures of themselves or set up questionably legal deals.

Don't judge me.

Re:#1 rats

[Charliemopps]

Banks. They rat you out to the government in every which way. Any given transaction is sent to the DEA and IRS just for starters. And of course the NSA gets everything by hook or by crook.

Banks are required by federal law to do this. They're under very strict regulations to report this sort of thing. The government knows if they control your wallet, they control you.

Not that the banks are the good guys, but in this regard they have very little choice.

Re:#1 rats

[Noah Haders]

Where do you keep your money then?

Re:#1 rats

[drinkypoo]

The difference is that the banks are required by law to report any interesting transactions, where interesting is defined as involving any notable amount of money. And notable is only five or ten grand, depending on who you ask. Casinos, of course, are under about the same sort of restrictions and reporting requirements. But Amazon ain't required to rat you out automagically

Re:#1 rats

[PRMan]

Bitcoin

Re:#1 rats

[Noah Haders]

won't you be frustrated when you have 50% less money tomorrow than you have today?

Re:#1 rats

[MaskedSlacker]

Same problem on the Nasdaq.

Re:#1 rats

[pnutjam]

Wow, as little as 5k, I might have 4 lifetime entries in a database somewhere. I'm worried!

Yesterday's news

[Janek Kozicki]

Apps Like "Whisper" and "Secret" Will Rat You Out

2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
Got important conversations to have with people? Sensitive information to convey? Do it in person. The Internet isn't safe anymore, hasn't been for a while now, and it's just likely to get worse.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[tlhIngan]

Got important conversations to have with people? Sensitive information to convey? Do it in person. The Internet isn't safe anymore, hasn't been for a while now, and it's just likely to get worse.

The internet was NEVER safe. You could NEVER count on perfect secrecy - in fact, everything sent or received had to pass through someone else's hands.

The old adage of "never put online what you don't want the world to know" has always been true. And the "world" refers to anyone - your parents, your boss, the authorities, the government, your friends, and everyone else.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[ewieling]

That is good advice, but almost nobody will listen. I've been slowly weaning myself off personal internet use. Down to only using 5 web sites (this one being one of them). I've also been slowly weaning myself of using my debit card and using cash when possible.

You cannot be part of modern society and not use technology which could track you. I try to strike a balance. I consider most monthly bills a lost cause, there is no privacy for them, might as well have them automatically paid. What I want to do is leave only the minimum of electronic footprints. I cannot prevent the government knowing everything about my bank account, but I can prevent them from knowing what I'm buying by using cash. If they think I'm a threat, nothing will stop them. I do not plan on ever being a threat.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

Of the few people who have commented on my original comment, I decided to reply to yours since you're touching on the most points I'd additionally like to cover anyway.

Yes, the real problem is that almost nobody will listen -- but my theory is that of that group of people who won't listen, they break down into people who don't understand, or care, or have been indoctrinated to not care, that their personal privacy is actually something of value to them, and once it's gone, it's gone, and it may not be possible to get it back. I think that the younger the person we're talking about, the less they care, and what's worse, they really think that anyone who does value and protect their privacy 'has something to hide', i.e. they think those people are Bad People who are committing crimes or something. I blame corporate brainwashing and perhaps government propaganda for this attitude; these younger people will grow up into a world where the idea of not sharing more-or-less every moment of their waking lives with the world is completely foreign to them, and that if you don't share everything, there's something wrong with you. Older people remember a world where individual privacy was something that every healthy person wanted, and was entitled to as a human being -- and because of this attitude, younger people say 'well, they're old, they don't understand' and any warnings about privacy being violated is ignored.

So far as planning to discontinue usage of your debit card (and presumably go cash-only)? Hate to tell you, but the situation has deteriorated to the point where if you do at some point have your financial paper trail taper off to almost nothing, you'll draw the attention of the government, which will assume you're up to no good and will start scrutinizing you. Then when they see you online footprint is also next to nothing, they'll be nearly convinced you're up to some sort of criminal activities, and you very well might be surveilled and profiled. If you happen to be in the wrong place(s) at the right time, you may be implicated in something you have absolutely nothing to do with, but since their 'profile' of you will seem to indicate to them that you're hiding something (because you're not one of the bleeting sheep they've carefully indoctrinated to be that way) it won't matter what you say to them or can prove. Welcome to the Dystopia, friend. "I do not plan on ever being a threat", you said at the end of your comment; I'm sorry, but in the end, as I said above, it won't matter, if you happen to get caught in one of their drag-nets. I do sympathize with you, and hopefully one decade things will turn around, but until then, I actually recommend you 'hide in plain sight' because to do too much to erase yourself, ironically, will just draw attention.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

In the current socio-political climate, the more you try to protect your privacy, through such means, the more scrutiny you're attracting to yourself. My best advice to you? Have a rich online life, but just fill it with nonsense and giggles, nothing important. If you're a clever man, throw in some misinformation just to screw with any profiling that may be occurring. Never name names of people, or allow photos of you, identifying you, to be posted online. People you personally know who won't comply with your wishes so far as photographs go? Consider not associating with them anymore. Never post specifics about where you've been and when you were there, just speak in generalities.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

I never said it ever was intrinsically safe. However there was perhaps a 'golden age' where it was becoming popular, yet there really wasn't anyone monitoring everything going on, either. We're well past that point anymore. We may never see those days again, either; the Internet may be past the point of redemption, if you've been paying attention to the news the last few weeks. The Internet may in the future just become something you use to pay your bills and rent streaming movies to watch, and something you're required to use in order to do your job everyday, and otherwise useless for anything else.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[lgw]

Suspected terrorists have in fact been killed (is "drone-struck" a word yet?) due to metadata. Not inside the US yet, but give it time.

If you think the government won't be interested in you just because you're minding your own business, read some history. That's what "totalitarian" means! You don't have to be special, when the government can afford to bother everyone. Am I to believe that a government that regulates how much water I use when I flush my toilet won't come after me for something I once posted? It's become socially acceptable to hound someone out of a job for some political cause they supported 5+ years ago - how long until it's legally acceptable?

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

If they 'have had everything they need to track someone down' prior to the Internet then why do they now need to monitor and sift through the entire internet on a continual basis? Also they're being 'proactive' now, meaning everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal so far as they're concerned. Get your head out of the sand, buddy, it's not 1950 anymore and the United States you thought you were living in is never really existed in the first place. One last thing: If you think you're not being monitored/tracked, then that's just a combination of your not paying attention to what's going on, and them doing their job well enough that you don't ordinarily notice. You can tell me and others like me that we're all tinfoil hat-wearers all you like, won't change a damn thing.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[kheldan]

I hear you, and I believe you; but I think that a component of the problem is they're being encouraged to make 'poor choices' through peer pressure and propaganda (both the corporate and government types). It's much easier and cheaper (and more profitable with regards to corporate America) to get people to provide their personal information than it is to have to pry it out of them, and that's what so-called 'social networking' is designed to do.

I'll read your link when I have time, I'm sure I'll find value in the insights.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[russotto]

Do you honestly believe that the government even has the resources to "monitor" every person in the country looking for someone doing something wrong?

In a word? Yes. At least everyone who is 3 hops away from a person of particular interest, and it seems likely that's almost everyone.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[MaskedSlacker]

It's become socially acceptable to hound someone out of a job for some political cause they supported 5+ years ago - how long until it's legally acceptable?

Oh, rougly -70 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

None of this is new. American, Land of the free, has always been a convenient lie.

Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever.

[pnutjam]

The short version is that young people do value privacy, just they, like most adults, don't comprehend the privacy concerns of social media and therefore make poor choices.

The older I get, the more I realize that the world is full of experience masquerading as intelligence. Learning (and teaching others) is more important then innate ability.

Re:Apple?

[ArcadeMan]

To be fair, this is the first year Apple gets all points. Also worth pointing out is that Microsoft and Google also got all points.

EFF Report?

[ArcadeMan]

Then why the fuck are you linking to itworld.com?

Here's the actual report, from EFF themselves.

Re:EFF Report?

[Charliemopps]

Because itworld likely submitted the story? lol

Re:Apple?

[ArcadeMan]

What also surprises me is that even Adobe actually scored higher than Amazon.

Re:Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo, Microsoft and Google also scored 5 stars, but didn't make the summary.
1) Apple's exclusion wasn't the product of narrowly-focused bias, but merely the result of there being more perfect scores (9) than were worth highlighting individually.
2) Yahoo, Microsoft and Google also scored 5 stars! Clearly the list means very little, but if you want to be all butthurt about it:

Apple is as transparent as Google and Facebook. Congrats! I think?

slashdot even lets the NSA read YOUR posts!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet slashdot even lets the NSA read YOUR posts!

Fight's for user rights in court is a bad metric

[aalevy]

In every case where the company did not earn a star, they report says it should not be seen as a demerit, as they may just not have had a chance to or not been able to report it. Doesn't that make it a poor comparison metric? Especially in comparison to the others...

Apples to Apples?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T being two stars is a far different beast than Amazon being two stars even if that meant shoveling over everything they knew about me at the drop of a hat.

Info on what kind of people?

[jeffmflanagan]

I'm OK with Amazon sharing info on someone who's obviously a mad bomber in the making. I'm not OK with them sharing data to prosecute people who's only crimes are violation of prohibitions that would be handled by a ministry of virtue and vice in an Islamic country, and are only prohibited because we've allowed Christian religious nutters too much power here. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution fall into this category.

Re:Info on what kind of people?

[CanHasDIY]

I'm OK with Amazon sharing info on people I disagree with. I'm not OK with them sharing data to prosecute people that I agree with.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but it sure sounds that way to me.

Re:Info on what kind of people?

[Jason Levine]

And now is Amazon going to spot a mad bomber in the making? It might be obvious if someone leaves a comment along the lines of "Zero stars. This didn't give me the bomb making instructions I was looking for. Recommend Other Book if you want to blow up your school like I do." By all means, report that commenter. But what about someone who bought a book titled "Explosive Chemistry" and then, a week later, ordered a pressure cooker. Should Amazon report that person? What if the person didn't buy the book and just ordered a pressure cooker? Should Amazon assume this person is a bomb-maker in the making and report him? Where is the line and why is it Amazon's responsibility to report all potential bomb makers?

Re:Info on what kind of people?

[Jawnn]

Where is the line and why is it Amazon's responsibility to report all potential bomb makers?

The line is just the other side of "probable cause", and that is not something that can be codified into rules that Amazon et al must follow. Probable cause is something that must be evaluated, by those we have empaneled to do so, on a case by case basis. Furthermore, there must be a system of review/redress for when those judgements are in error. We don't have these things anymore. We have allowed the government (more precisely, a collusion between the executive and legislative branches, and the corporate interests who pull their strings) to wrest that power away from the judiciary. I can not overstate the dire consequences this has given rise to. We may never regain that precious balance of power.

Re:Info on what kind of people?

[PRMan]

Really? I'm far more concerned that thanks to people like you, very soon it will be illegal to be a Christian and the past purchases I've made on Amazon will make it obvious that I am one and that I'll be easy to find because of it. Tyranny goes both ways, you know.

Re:Info on what kind of people?

[captjc]

It sounds more like it's OK to buy porn and dildos but you probably shouldn't buy a ski mask, tarp, hatchet and a copy of American Psycho at the same time.

I remember there was some lab supply company selling a bottles of chloroform under Amazon Marketplace a few years ago. I have no idea how legit the offer was, but under "People who bought this also bought" was handkerchiefs, condoms, and rope. It had one 5-star review about the using it to "find love the old fashion way."

Complete list of six star winners

[jamesl]

Social media giants Facebook and Twitter scored quite well.

In the interests of completeness ...
Apple, CREDO Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Sonic, Twitter, and Yahoo Top Chart, Receive 6 Stars Each

Re:Complete list of six star winners

[Anubis IV]

It's good to see the PRISM list so well-represented. :-/

Re:Complete list of six star winners

[PRMan]

Google often gets criticized but it's pretty obvious to me that they fought it every step of the way and that most of the leaks from them were from a hack inside their network that they have since closed.

Re:Complete list of six star winners

[Anubis IV]

I actually agree (and not just with regards to Google either). Nonetheless, I still found it rather ironic that most of these champions for our privacy were named on the list of companies (quite likely unknowingly) providing data to the US government.

This is very misleading.

[bravecanadian]

It is great that they make the govt do what they are *supposed* to have to do to get your data.. but look at their privacy policies for everything else!

None. None. of these companies "have your back" as far as protecting your private information.

Most of them have business models based completely on collecting, using and selling it.

I'd be shocked if the govt didn't have a couple of advertising front companies that simply buy the data rather than request it officially.

The Lavabit case...

[Virtucon]

The Lavabit case kind of makes cooperating with the government a no-brainer from a business perspective. If you try and defend the privacy of your users you'll just have a judge basically say "fuck you, I'm the law" and you either capitulate or get slapped with contempt of court which means your ass is in jail until you decide to do what the judge says. Either you cooperate or your out of business and in jail which is sad really because even though the FBI was pursuing Snowden and wound up on Lavabit's doorstep which then eliminated the whole service for everybody via judicial action. Not saying that Snowden peed in the pool but the American Justice System was the culprit here and they're they ones that peed all over our Privacy rights in this case. The only way this will be solved is if there's a constitutional amendment reaffirming the 4th and 5th amendments along with your right to Privacy. I don't expect to see that in my lifetime because we have too many big players who want to intrude on your privacy. From Google to Facebook to License Plate Scanning companies, they are making money off of your actions and they'll be the first whiney bitches in front of congress any time there's any kind of legislation pending that could disturb their revenue stream. Wake up America, time to take your country back! Wait, nobody? Meh. Fuck it then.

Re:The Lavabit case...

[DontLickJesus]

People wonder why USPS is failing. Do you realize that a fairly simple technical implementation marking data with digital postage would legally shield it all? USPS should be Lavabit, hell an ISP. Its simply because the PEOPLE OCCUPYING OUR GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND DDOS. Clog all the pipes. Eventually our 'No's will be accepted as authoratative. Because.

Re:The Lavabit case...

[pnutjam]

Silence means consent.
..now that you've consented, let me remove this gag.

I'm well protected... uhh, excuse me

[swschrad]

somebody is shouting over a bullhorn, and kicking in my doors. I'll be right back........

But my Snapchats DISAPPEAR, don't they?

[ZipK]

Does Snapchat send the government back in time to see my pictures before they were fully and completely disappeared?

Re:But my Snapchats DISAPPEAR, don't they?

[PRMan]

They only disappear from your phone. Not from their servers.

First an endorsement for a watered down bill...

[ChilyWily]

(see Slashdot discussion here)
and now this. What the effin' happened to the EFF?