Scary stuff …

Let’s try to keep Politics out of this …

There’s an interesting/scary story on the Guardian page tonight:

NHS data breach: trusts shared patient details with Facebook without consent

Observer investigation reveals Meta Pixel tool passed on private details of web browsing on medical sites

.

It is, I suggest, worth reading !

MichaelG.

.

Ref. __ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/meta-pixel/

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 27/05/2023 22:34:04

Every time you "upgrade" your computer or internet browser the easier you make it for them to track your activities

All completely legal of course

As a W7 user Chrome can't touch me

Depending on the browser I use, various websites may or may not let me in

"Your computer browser is out of date!" means "We can't track you!"

Edited By Ady1 on 27/05/2023 23:12:35

There are a few things you can do to make tracking you a bit more difficult, just do an internet searh. But I guess full privacy is difficult in our internet world as we leave electronic traces.

Thor

Edited By Thor 🇳🇴 on 28/05/2023 07:20:19

What is laughable is that Meta harvest this data automatically as a function of their software, but have T&Cs that prohibit users from sending personal data. How does that work?

There’s a little more about this story on the Independent this morning

[ funny how much reporting of others’ work goes on ]

____

According to The Observer, 17 of the 20 NHS trusts found to be using Meta Pixel confirmed they had pulled the tracking tool from their websites over the weekend.

Many of the trusts said they installed the tracking pixels to monitor recruitment or charity campaigns and were not aware that they were sending patient data to Facebook.

One of the trusts, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust, previously said in its privacy policy that “confidential personal information about your health and care… would never be used for marketing purposes without your explicit consent”.

In a statement to the Observer, the trust apologised to patients and said Meta Pixel had been “installed in relation to a recruitment campaign, and we were not aware that Meta was using this information for marketing purposes”.

“Immediate action has been taken to remove it,” a spokesperson from the trust added.

____

MichaelG.

.

P.S.

”not aware” would appear to be the damning phrase !!

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/05/2023 09:46:50

Other way round unfortunately! Not upgrading computers causes far more trouble than keeping them up to date.

Trouble is security loopholes are discovered after software is delivered, maybe years later. The only way to fix flaws is by upgrading. Or avoid the risk by disconnecting entirely.

In the Meta Pixel example there's nothing in W7 or an older browser that automatically stops it working. It, and similar, can be blocked but the user has to configure his browser. Assuming an old set-up will resist a new attack is wrong. (Not just computers, All assumptions are iffy! Check!)

Of course new technologies bring different risks. For example, as far as I know, the original Internet Explorer made money through sales. In contrast, Edge is 'free', but it earns money by collecting user data so that advertisers can target individuals. Unfortunately, collections of user data can also be used for nefarious purposes.

What I do:

• Linux is safer than Windows, so is used for almost all browsing.
• Firefox has enhanced privacy features compared with some other browsers and being Open Source isn't monetised by a commercial owner.
• Firefox is configured by me:
  • The Search Engine is DuckDuckGo, not Google, Bing, Yahoo etc. (DuckDuckGo promise not to track)
  • I have also installed 'DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials'. On this forum page, which is low risk, it has blocked Facebook, Crazy Egg and 2 different Google trackers. Because I allow advertising on this site it permits Ads from google, gstatic, and advintage that would otherwise be blocked.
  • Generally I block adverts because the difference between legitimate Ads and trackers is narrow.
• GDPR and other legislation requires sites to ask permission before they use cookies. If the site offers a plain 'Reject All' button, use it. However, many sites ask permission in ambiguous ways: it's not clear what acceptance actually blocks and allows. 'Legitimate Interest' is meaningless. I walk away from these. Websites that have chosen to be unclear about cookies are likely to be collecting more data than I want to release.
• Internet hygiene is important. Although most legitimate sites are safe-ish, avoid off colour humour, political, porn, gambling, drugs, or anything else that fluffs your interest with dodgy material.
• I do not assume that any of the above, or the security measures I haven't listed, are valid for ever. For example, I periodically check the Firefox is still a good choice: software changes rapidly, so it's always possible a different browser, ad-blocker, privacy tool or whatever else will do a better job.

I'm Windows 10 at the moment and dithering about going to W11. Doing so involves making a BIOS change and it could go wrong! But the clock is ticking - W10 goes out of support on October 14, 2025. Functionally W11 doesn't do anything I want, so I could leave it alone. But this introduces another risk, which is the size of the gap that has to be jumped between an ancient version of an operating system and the newest. Best to keep the gap small: apart from the increased risk of a technical malfunction, anyone jumping from W7 to W11 will find a multitude of differences when they arrive. An when I fire up W11 I know Microsoft will have switched off all my security selections and I'll have to wade through putting them back. It's a pain. Unfortunately, procrastination usually causes even more hassle in the long run.

Dave

So, Dave, knowing what you do know about W11, why then do you continue to support them? Especially when you've already said that Linux is safer than Windows.

Peter G. Shaw