Unilateral Invasions of Privacy

Most people seem to agree that individuals have too little privacy, and most proposals to address that problem focus on ways to give those users more information about, and more control over, how information about them is used. Yet in nearly all cases, information subjects are not the parties who make decisions about how information is collected, used, and disseminated; instead, outsiders make unilateral decisions to collect, use, and disseminate information about others. These potential privacy invaders, acting without input from information subjects, are the parties to whom proposals to protect privacy must be directed. This Article develops a theory of unilateral invasions of privacy rooted in the incentives of potential outside invaders. It first briefly describes the different kinds of information flows that can result in losses of privacy and the private costs and benefits to the participants in these information flows. It argues that in many cases the relevant costs and benefits are those of an outsider deciding whether certain information flows occur. These outside invaders are more likely to act when their own private costs and benefits make particular information flows worthwhile, regardless of the effects on information subjects or on social welfare. And potential privacy invaders are quite sensitive to changes in these costs and benefits, unlike information subjects, for whom transaction costs can overwhelm incentives to make information more or less private. The Article then turns to privacy regulation, arguing that this unilateral-invasion theory sheds light on how effective privacy regulations should be designed. Effective regulations are those that help match the costs and benefits faced by a potential privacy invader with the costs and benefits to society of a given information flow. Law can help do so by raising or lowering the costs or benefits of a privacy invasion, but only after taking account of other costs and benefits faced by the potential privacy invader

Privacy Preserving Internet Browsers: Forensic Analysis of Browzar

With the advance of technology, Criminal Justice agencies are being confronted with an increased need to investigate crimes perpetuated partially or entirely over the Internet. These types of crime are known as cybercrimes. In order to conceal illegal online activity, criminals often use private browsing features or browsers designed to provide total browsing privacy. The use of private browsing is a common challenge faced in for example child exploitation investigations, which usually originate on the Internet. Although private browsing features are not designed specifically for criminal activity, they have become a valuable tool for criminals looking to conceal their online activity. As such, Technological Crime units often focus their forensic analysis on thoroughly examining the web history on a computer. Private browsing features and browsers often require a more in-depth, post mortem analysis. This often requires the use of multiple tools, as well as different forensic approaches to uncover incriminating evidence. This evidence may be required in a court of law, where analysts are often challenged both on their findings and on the tools and approaches used to recover evidence. However, there are very few research on evaluating of private browsing in terms of privacy preserving as well as forensic acquisition and analysis of privacy preserving internet browsers. Therefore in this chapter, we firstly review the private mode of popular internet browsers. Next, we describe the forensic acquisition and analysis of Browzar, a privacy preserving internet browser and compare it with other popular internet browser

Solutions to Detect and Analyze Online Radicalization : A Survey

Online Radicalization (also called Cyber-Terrorism or Extremism or Cyber-Racism or Cyber- Hate) is widespread and has become a major and growing concern to the society, governments and law enforcement agencies around the world. Research shows that various platforms on the Internet (low barrier to publish content, allows anonymity, provides exposure to millions of users and a potential of a very quick and widespread diffusion of message) such as YouTube (a popular video sharing website), Twitter (an online micro-blogging service), Facebook (a popular social networking website), online discussion forums and blogosphere are being misused for malicious intent. Such platforms are being used to form hate groups, racist communities, spread extremist agenda, incite anger or violence, promote radicalization, recruit members and create virtual organi- zations and communities. Automatic detection of online radicalization is a technically challenging problem because of the vast amount of the data, unstructured and noisy user-generated content, dynamically changing content and adversary behavior. There are several solutions proposed in the literature aiming to combat and counter cyber-hate and cyber-extremism. In this survey, we review solutions to detect and analyze online radicalization. We review 40 papers published at 12 venues from June 2003 to November 2011. We present a novel classification scheme to classify these papers. We analyze these techniques, perform trend analysis, discuss limitations of existing techniques and find out research gaps

Children's Databases - Safety and Privacy

This report describes in detail the policy background, the systems that are being built, the problems with them, and the legal situation in the UK. An appendix looks at Europe, and examines in particular detail how France and Germany have dealt with these issues. Our report concludes with three suggested regulatory action strategies for the Commissioner: one minimal strategy in which he tackles only the clear breaches of the law, one moderate strategy in which he seeks to educate departments and agencies and guide them towards best practice, and finally a vigorous option in which he would seek to bring UK data protection practice in these areas more in line with normal practice in Europe, and indeed with our obligations under European law