General Category > Blog

Terrorism, web sites, games and privacy (anonymity)

<< < (5/13) > >>

kat:

--- Quote from: Develop Online ---The Sims creator has established a new company, called HiveMind, and is looking to build a mobile phone app that will pool together an extraordinary level of personal data, and in turn provide services, information, help, ideas and games
--- End quote ---
For this to work they are going to need one colossally complex protection system to be in place to secure the amount of information they're proposing the game will need to access (and collect over time) in order for it to work well. This potentially makes the data RealID collects on individuals like a single page of War and Peace!

kat:
Reading things like this makes for an increased sense of unease (it should be mentioned that it's taken the UK Gov. six or so months to release this into the public domain for inspection - see comment from Oct 2011).

--- Quote ---Websites are to be given greater protection against legal action over libel or hate content under new legislation to be unveiled today – but only if they expose internet trolls' identities.
--- End quote ---

Additional Reading

* Bill documents — Defamation Bill 2012-13
* Defamation Bill text (as proposed)
* Bill text as PDF (as proposed)

kat:
Via MCV. A Patent registered to Microsoft allows Kinect to monitor activity to ensure content licenses are being complied with.

--- Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office ---A content presentation system and method allowing content providers to regulate the presentation of content on a per-user-view basis. Content is distributed an associated license option on the number of individual consumers or viewers allowed to consume the content. Consumers are presented with a content selection and a choice of licenses allowing consumption of the content. The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.
--- End quote ---

The way the Patent works equates to actively monitoring the "display area" and "display device", sending back information therein to the provider so they can then charge accordingly - license a movie, the system 'sees' 5 people in the room, the fee is then amended appropriately (based on the initial license terms and conditions).

--- Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office ---"[0028] ...a per-viewer license may comprise counting the number of viewers in a viewing area and directly charging for each identified user in the viewing area.".

5. ... including continuously monitoring a number of users at a display device during the performance of the content.

6. ... including determining whether a number of users at a display device exceeds the license option during the performance of the content.

7. ... including presenting the user an option to change the license if a number of allowed user performances in a license is exceeded during performance...

14. ... including identifying specific users within a display area of a display device...
--- End quote ---

Using the system content providers can even determine how much time has elapsed for content to be considered as having been watched or "used".

--- Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office ---"[0038] Various algorithms may be used to determine whether a user present within the display area of the display device has consumed enough of the content for such consumption to be considered a "use" of the content".
--- End quote ---

Further Reading

* CONTENT DISTRIBUTION REGULATION BY VIEWING USER

ratty redemption [RIP]:
surely this is an invasion of user's privacy?

kat:
It depends whether users voluntarily press the red button. That's a key concept in all this stuff which includes the likes of Facebook, Twitter et-al, not just Kinect and other gesture systems. Whilst they all tend to operate under the auspices of the 'commons' (services provided for and to the public), participation in them is entirely voluntary in the final analysis. That's why court cases are typically lost with respect to privacy, with respect to a 'provision of service' (loosing users data is another matter entirely).

Having said that, the Patent in question tends to use the word "monitor" rather than "watch"; whilst there are general technical and legalistic reason for that (words don't always have the same dictionary definition in Law as they do in common use), it's also because those two nouns(?) illicit a completely different response depending on the content. For example, "the device monitors you/your children for age appropriate content access" versus "the device watches you/your children for age appropriate content access". All things being equal, the latter should make ones spider-sense tingle.

Of course this then gets into a discussion about "informed consent".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page