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
Oldest First  |  Newest 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?
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.