Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm

I just read an article published in The Guardian on Sunday 10 February 2013, by Ryan Gallagher about a new video revealing a new data mining software created by a defence firm that could be transformed into a Google for spies.

Here's some highlights:

A video obtained by the Guardian reveals how an "extreme-scale analytics" system created by Raytheon, the world's fifth largest defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.

Raytheon says it has not sold the software – named Riot, or Rapid Information Overlay Technology – to any clients.

The power of Riot to harness popular websites for surveillance offers a rare insight into controversial techniques that have attracted interest from intelligence and national security agencies, at the same time prompting civil liberties and online privacy concerns.

The sophisticated technology demonstrates how the same social networks that helped propel the Arab Spring revolutions can be transformed into a "Google for spies" and tapped as a means of monitoring and control.

Read the full article here.

If you're not paying for it, you're the product

This might be the shortest blog post ever but it's something that came to my mind when I was reading about the Instagram backlash and I had to share it.
And this is more like a message to every "facebooker" or "instagramer" out there who gets shocked every time a line get added to the terms of service and to every wise-a$$ who goes through these terms line by line trying to show us how they get to screw us. So here it is :

WTF did you expect? Where do you think you're Living?? Utopia??

This is the real world.. Nothing is free.

And here's an old comment that got famous from "Metafilter" that describe it best:

National Geographic suspends new Instagram posts over new terms

Famed purveyor of awesome photography is 'very concerned' 

By Chris Smith  21 hrs ago On techradar.com

 

The backlash against Instagram's new terms of service has continued, despite the company's claim that it isn't planning to sell photos posted on the site.
National Geographic, the magazine famous for its top-notch snaps, said on Tuesday that it was suspending all posts to the Facebook-owned service beyond the current 714 uploads.
In a post on its Instagram feed, the publication said it was 'very concerned' by the new terms threatened to delete its NatGeo account completely, unless the policy is changed.
"@NatGeo is suspending new posts to Instagram. We are very concerned with the direction of the proposed new terms of service and if they remain as presented we may close our account," the post read.

Open to interpretation

Following the public outing of its controversial new privacy policy and terms of service documents on Monday, Instagram has been taking an almighty hiding from all comers.
The new terms requested that Instagram be given the rights to harvest users' photographs and likeness in advertisements without any reparations to the person who posted them.
It stated: "To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata) and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
On Tuesday, co-founder Kevin Systrom, claimed that the document had been misinterpreted and that it would soon be republished with different wording to make things clearer.
He wrote: "It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing.
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

Reversed or reworded?

In the case of National Geographic, which has almost 650,000 followers, it is unclear whether the publication wants the new policy to be reversed or whether it simply wants the language to be altered.
It will be interesting to see if more high profile users of the service follow suit and the effect this has on how the policy reappears to the world.