What we give up for convenience

If you think about it, who is the culprit in the multitude of personal data breaches? The hackers? The companies that failed to protect the data? Or is it ourselves for uploading our personal data in the first place? This really isn’t a proper question because we aren’t the culprits. But the point is that we, ourselves, allow more and more data to be collected by mega corporations. Sometimes it is innocuous as registering on a web site or app, which we cannot always avoid because in order to do business in the digital world we have to. What I mean by allow is two pronged. One, we are not outspoken enough about the Google’s and Facebook’s of the digital world collecting data. Facebook has seen a little backlash recently, but people will continue over sharing every detail of their life. But that’s the really big picture. 

Second, and more specific to personal security, is what we allow by making choices to upload or share personal data. We do this by plugging in the new smart TV without learning about its capabilities and without changing the settings. Or by installing the multitude of other appliances, cameras, digital assistants that we bring into our homes and plug and play. Anything you can talk to on demand and receive a response has to be listening all the time. Creepy? We will allow apps to track our location so that when we are in certain stores or near certain locations we receive notifications. As with listening, these apps aren’t waiting for you to arrive at a certain location, they are tracking and storing your every move until you arrive at the specific location.

How much privacy are we willing to give up?

Last month police and the FBI captured a man suspected of being a serial rapist and murderer in a multitude of cases from forty years ago. The case was broken through the use of DNA. The suspect himself was smart enough not to have his DNA logged into any DNA databases. Smart detectives realized that outside of justice system DNA databases there is a plethora of information being collected by private entities. Ancestral research companies provide DNA collection kits, which allow people to submit their DNA for comparison to other samples in hopes of finding family matches. You guessed it, the profiles are stored in databases so that they can be pinged during searches.

Checking crime scene DNA against public sources of DNA, police were able to get a familial match. That match narrowed the pool of suspects down to one family. Then through traditional police work detectives were able to identify a suspect. As you can imagine privacy watchdogs are all over the issue of law enforcement having access to private sector databases.

For some time Amazon has been offering package delivery inside of your home. Utilizing an Amazon smart lock, with the customer’s permission and knowledge, delivery personnel can unlock your door and drop the package inside. Of course, you are alerted each step of the process. Amazon recently announced package delivery to your vehicle. Currently the service is only offered to owners of GM and Volvo vehicles in certain cities.  The privacy we give for convenience. We allow cleaning and pet sitting services into our vacant homes but more than likely we have met the workers performing the services. I’m sure Amazon does a fantastic job vetting it’s employees. The point is we are giving complete strangers access to our homes and vehicles. We are then shocked and surprised when something bad happens. 

Check yourself

As with corporations and social media we gladly share and upload personal data, even our current location and DNA profiles. Trusting souls that we humans are we don’t cry foul until there is a breach or government overreach. Even though we are the ones that probably share a little too much.

You can’t always avoid uploading data or providing data through registrations. What you can do is be aware of what and to whom you are sharing. Monitor your financial accounts and pay attention to announcements of breaches. You may not be directly affected, but your other accounts may have been compromised through third party links to the breach victim.

Just as we are told to change smoke detector batteries at Daylight Saving Time, maybe we should get in the habit of doing online security checks every time there is a breach announcement.

Please see the blog archive for other posts relating to privacy.

There’s been a breach May 2018

How secure are apps? April 2018

One born every minute February 2018

Are you being watched? February 2018

Cleaning up your online presence September 2017

Public WiFi for dummies July 2017

Keys to the vault August 2015

One born every minute

You are security conscious and know all the Internet do and don’ts, but sometime it is going to happen. You’re going to fall for click bait, open an infected email attachment, or fall for a social media hoax. You’re not dumb. You’re not gullible. You’re not alone. People of all ages, backgrounds, and intelligence will fall for social media hoaxes. Including this writer.

As with any scam, whether it is a criminal affair or a joke, the perpetrators play on our human nature and how we react to stimuli. Must notably anything that threatens our family or personally well being. Fear. As with any con, the perpetrator uses broad, widely known information, with some truth sprinkled in for good measure. Sometimes, as the case with privacy issues, will use functions of the app to make it believable. Instructing the victim to perform a function within the app that produces a result. When the result happens, it further validates the hoax.

The ones that get you are intelligently written in a generic style or tone that could be from any close friend or relative that you would normally trust. They either forward the item to you, or worse, endorse it with a message that reads something like, “Tried it. It works!” or “This is true”. Most people don’t do research. If so and so posted it must be true, and we quickly click ‘share’. After fourteen years, Facebook is still having trust issues with its users. Anything that hints at a privacy scandal runs wild and users react.

Hoaxes, just like malware, circulate, mutate, and resurface, sometimes years after being launched. The one that got me was the ‘Following me’ security check on Facebook. [Spoiler alert-It’s a hoax] You receive a message from someone you trust that reads like the photo heading of this blog post. And trust me, it will read like the above photo because the original language just keeps getting forwarded. Following the steps outlined in the post you’ll find these unknown people “following” you on Facebook. You quickly go to the next step and start deleting all of these unwanted followers. How dare they intrude onto my highly secure and private Facebook page! The nerve.

After testing the theory and seeing that it does indeed reveal hidden followers, you forward the message on with your own endorsement. Because it does work, it must be true. You have to alert all of your friends. I didn’t go that far. But it did give me an idea for a blog post. A couple minutes of research had me SMH. Got me!

Snopes.com addressed this very hoax in a January 2017 article that was updated in September 2017.(Are Facebook users secretlyfollowing you?) Snopes traced the origin to a rumor post being circulated that Facebook security teams were paid to follow individual accounts. The post read similar to the one pictured except the user was instructed to enter ‘Facebook security’ in the block users search box. While this did return a list of people, it was determined to be people who had used ‘Facebook security’ in their profiles. In September 2017, the hoax took on the form we have pictured. However, now following the instructions returns a list of people that have “me” in their profiles.

In fact, the search box reads

So the hoaxers set you up with instructions that return what they want, a list of people you’ve never heard of, which gives validity to the hoax. Which gets it forwarded. And on and on and on it goes.

Please feel free to share. See the blog archive for more posts about privacy.
Are you being watched? February 2018

Time Expired on parking meters November 2017

Cleaning up online presence September 2017

Skimmers August 2017

Public WiFi for dummies July 2017

If you ever want to see your files again… August 2016

What did you say? August 2015

Keys to the vault August 2015

Workplace monitoring

 The messaging software company Slack is working on software that will install manager bots to monitor employee production. The bots will be plugged into company networks to monitor an employee’s work. The bots will ask for updates, check employees work status, and even ask what tasks are currently being worked. Managers won’t have to roam the cube farms to keep everyone on point. The bots will do it.

Does this help or hurt employee morale and productivity? Do companies that are constantly looking over employee shoulders getting the results they want?

Many in the workforce have been exposed to a micro manager. Constantly overlooking every detail of an employee’s work. Workers usually respond with frustration or task-to-task completion without innovation. Doing only what has to be done to satisfy the manager, waiting to be told what to do next. The last decade has seen the use of technology to replace that micro manager.

Long before the idea of manager bots technology enabled companies to monitor almost every aspect of a worker’s day. Most, if not all, companies that have computer networks monitor employee email traffic and Internet use. Some even capture keystrokes and keyboard activity, such as how long a keyboard has been inactive. Software enables managers to monitor telecommuters-are they actively working or just logged in to the network? Companies that utilize vehicles track employees through GPS, recording location and length of stay. Hospitals track nurses through the use of sensors embedded to monitor their location and patient visits. And let’s not forget about cameras. With or without using a computer, workers are constantly tracked. How the use of monitoring occurs and is communicated to workers can have varied results.

Hawthorne Effect

Workers who are knowingly being observed tend to be more productive due to what has been called the Hawthorne effect. The Hawthorne effect is used to describe the tendency of observed employees to work harder due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of individual work habits.

The Hawthorne Effect is named for the location where worker productivity experiments took place in the 1920’s and 1930’s, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works near Hawthorne, Illinois. The electric company had commissioned research to determine if there was a relationship between productivity and the work environment. The focus of the studies was to determine if increasing or decreasing the amount of light that workers received would have an effect on worker productivity. Employee productivity seemed to increase due to the changes but then decreased after the experiment was over. Researchers suggested that productivity increased due to attention from the research team and not because of changes in the experimental variables.

Transparency Trap

Ethan Bernstein, assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School has extensively researched employee monitoring. Bernstein believes that it is difficult for employees to be at their best when they know they are being watched and evaluated at every moment. Bernstein wrote in the Harvard Business Review, “Wide open workspaces and copious real time data on how individuals spend their time can leave employees feeling exposed and vulnerable.” For his paper, The Transparency Trap, Bernstein conducted several experiments to help prove his theory. In one, Bernstein embedded five Chinese born Harvard undergraduate researchers into the lines of the world's second largest mobile phone factory in China. Controls were added to allow for the Hawthorne Effect.

This particular experiment showed that employees acted and behaved differently when they were being watched. Basically, observed employees followed the policies of the company to the letter while unobserved employees did not. Unobserved employees innovated ways to make their tasks easier, tending to hide process improvements from managers. Two examples were scanning multiple bar codes at once instead of one at time as per policy and crossed trained themselves on breaks. The intent was to improve the process without having the inefficiency of explaining their actions to managers.

Overall, those shielded from observation were more productive than the observed. Experimentation, shared problem solving, and focus flourished.

Communication

There are many examples of employee monitoring. Done improperly, with poor communication to employees may cause resentment and a feeling of “Big Brother” is watching. Letting workers know that data is being collected to improve efficiency may alleviate skewed results. UPS has saved millions and improved their schedules by collecting delivery data and providing the analysis back to drivers. You may have heard of how UPS routes were made more efficient by reducing left turns.

Letting employees know that monitoring is taking place, how the data is being used, and how that will improve their workday goes a long way is establishing trust between employer and employee.

Will employees do their best when being observed? Or are they so hindered by the constant oversight that they do the minimum required. If left to themselves would they perform better, working more efficiently with less fear of messing up and being corrected by managers?

These questions that are still being studied. From what is known, it seems that communication between management and the workforce about the use of technology to monitor productivity is a key factor for improvement. Technology will always continue to improve. Innovators will figure out how to apply technology to the workplace. But while people are still involved they need to be kept in the loop.