Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
1/15/2016
01:00 PM
James Kane
James Kane
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Internet of Private Things: 7 Privacy Missteps

A cautionary tale about the rules of 'Privacy by Design' and seven IoT companies that broke them in recent years.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

(Image Source: Fitbit)

(Image Source: Fitbit)

This year the Internet of Things stole Christmas.

FitBit, the wearable fitness tracker, pushed aside games and music streaming services to become Christmas Day’s most downloaded app on the App Store. As the nation sat down to stuff themselves, millions of wearable fitness trackers came online, each logging the most intimate details of their users’ movements. Some kids this Christmas unpacked Hello Barbie, a doll that uses voice-recognition technology to respond to children’s questions – and sends recordings of their conversations to third parties.

I hate to be a Grinch - but have we really thought through the implications of all this? In the coming years data drawn from IoT devices will monitor and log more information about us than ever before. In fact, Mark Andreessen recently predicted that over the next 20 years every physical item will have a chip implanted in it.

So far companies have not done a particularly great job at protecting their consumers’ privacy. To remedy that, here are a few New Year’s privacy policy resolutions based on the seven principles of Privacy by Design -- and some cautionary examples from companies that broke them. 

 

In 2008 James Kane launched Two Bulls with cofounder Noah Harlan. Prior to co-founding Two Bulls, James served as an advisor to the Australian Federal Attorney General, specializing in IP and international Law. He also worked as an attorney at law in New York and clerked with ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
geriatric
67%
33%
geriatric,
User Rank: Moderator
1/19/2016 | 8:57:30 AM
Same Problem You Have
Companies who ignore privacy concerns have the same mentality as those who create and publish ugly pornographic images under the guise of business and industry-relevant articles. Who did your proof-reading - Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt or Lena Dunham?
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5798
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Lack of correct bounds checking in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform an out of bounds memory read via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5799
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect inheritance of a new document's policy in Content Security Policy in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5800
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Insufficient policy enforcement in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5801
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect eliding of URLs in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2019-5802
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-23
Incorrect handling of download origins in Navigation in Google Chrome prior to 73.0.3683.75 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.