# Big Brother Really Is Watching You



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

This has been known for awhile now, but the breadth and depth of it was really unknown until this week. Yahoo Mail is still scanning your emails for data to sell to advertisers My son is the IT Mgr of a large Federal Court. Most of the transactions and communications with the court from attorney is  supposed to be via secure email. It was only discovered this week that not only the email sent by attorneys via their Yahoo accounts was being scanned but that from the court back to that Yahoo account was being scanned as well. Even worse any links to court cases within the emails were being compromised and scanned as well. Yahoo didn't have any answers to why they were scanning privileged information other then they shouldn't be doing that. For the time being the courts are blocking any emails from or to Yahoo accounts.


----------



## Fujidave (Nov 9, 2018)

I think it is bang out of order that these big companies can spy on folk, they should be sued for many millions then they might stop it.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 9, 2018)

Does this surprise ANYONE???????????????


----------



## tirediron (Nov 9, 2018)

Fujidave said:


> I think it is bang out of order that these big companies can spy on folk, they should be sued for many millions then they might stop it.


How/why?  You don't really expect they're offering this "free" service for any altruistic reason do you?  They're doing it to increase revenue and they will do that by whatever means they can.


----------



## Fujidave (Nov 9, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Fujidave said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is bang out of order that these big companies can spy on folk, they should be sued for many millions then they might stop it.
> ...



I think it should be banned for spying on courts and some things, but if they are want to spy then they should disclose what.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 9, 2018)

I like it when google puts things on my calendar for me.


----------



## Designer (Nov 9, 2018)

Google is very helpful to shoppers.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 9, 2018)

Fujidave said:


> I think it should be banned for spying on courts and some things, but if they are want to spy then they should disclose what.


I would submit that if the lawyers & courts are using Yahoo, THEY are the ones at fault.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

The courts use secure servers for email, the attorneys however are cheapskates.  It wasn't really the court's problem because the security  breach was occurring on the attorney's end, however it was opening up a backdoor with the links that was a problem. The other thing was they were scanning both the free and the paid accounts.

     The thing is it's all perfectly legal because if you use the service you agreed to their terms of service, you didn't have a choice accept or don't use it. Now they're discovering other things like web sites, software, etc., that are going above and beyond they first believed was being tracked. Yahoo is using a proprietary AI software to scan the email check the links, scan those, digest the information and put it in a format for sale.


----------



## Fujidave (Nov 9, 2018)

It is one of those very tricky subjects, nearly everyone uses an email so like me I know that they will snoop and spy on folk.  The only way you could stop it is, Never use the internet or a mobile phone at all but that won`t happen to me.


----------



## n614cd (Nov 9, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> This has been known for awhile now, but the breadth and depth of it was really unknown until this week. Yahoo Mail is still scanning your emails for data to sell to advertisers My son is the IT Mgr of a large Federal Court. Most of the transactions and communications with the court from attorney is  supposed to be via secure email. It was only discovered this week that not only the email sent by attorneys via their Yahoo accounts was being scanned but that from the court back to that Yahoo account was being scanned as well. Even worse any links to court cases within the emails were being compromised and scanned as well. Yahoo didn't have any answers to why they were scanning privileged information other then they shouldn't be doing that. For the time being the courts are blocking any emails from or to Yahoo accounts.



Then the court better block gmail, outlook.com.... basically all the free email providers scan emails. The data is used to support advertising which pays the bills.

Tim


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

n614cd said:


> Then the court better block gmail, outlook.com.... basically all the free email providers scan emails. The data is used to support advertising which pays the bills



Again not to the extent that Yahoo was doing by opening links and copying what it found there, plus the fact that they were scanning paid accounts as well. However all manner of electronic communication within, is undergoing extreme scrutiny now.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 9, 2018)

what's wrong with following links within the email?


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

Braineack said:


> what's wrong with following links within the email?



Attorneys can follow the links for copies of all court documents in the case, which down loads same. In addition to being sensitive information not for general distribution, the attorneys get one down load free, thereafter it costs them so much per page every time the link is clicked, so attorney's were getting billed for documents they never downloaded. The courts have firewalls, that limit information available but at the same time attorneys require access to documents concerning their clients. I don't use Yahoo, but others are similar. I've been going through checking privacy settings to opt out of all that crap.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 9, 2018)

So the problem really is the court is still operating online as it it's 1995?   is their website members.aol.com?

literally all they need to do is update their robots.txt.


----------



## n614cd (Nov 9, 2018)

Braineack said:


> So the problem really is the court is still operating online as it it's 1995?   is their website members.aol.com?
> 
> literally all they need to do is update their robots.txt.



Nope. robots.txt deals with a web crawler. This is content scanning of email.

Tim


----------



## Braineack (Nov 9, 2018)

OP said the yahoo software is following links within the email content to an outside server -- that server can control access.  Even if that software doesn't respect robots.txt, which im assuming it does, the server should still be able to see what/who accessed the link, and if it truly is coming from yahoo, then blacklist it.

The court is blaming yahoo for their security shortcomings.

in the least, the urls should be protected if they are private access, unique pin per url, simple login account, named access, etc.

I find it more unethical that a court will charge a lawyer per link hit for information that costs them absolutely zilch to host than a free email service selling targeted advertising based on an algorithm it uses when scanning the emails...

pro tip of the day: don't hire a lawyer who uses free yahoo email and doesn't click the opt-out button.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

Braineack said:


> the server should still be able to see what/who accessed the link, and if it truly is coming from yahoo, then blacklist it.



When the problem came up, they were able to verify that the traffic was from Yahoo, which is why they have now blocked Yahoo entirely. Once they did that Yahoo engineers actually called them to find out why the government servers were blocking them.  Once the problem was explained they sheepishly admitted that it was problem they weren't aware of but didn't have an immediate solution. So for the time being they remain blocked. The access granted by the links are read only of specific documents, that don't grant other access, and are generated by the court system when anything is filed for which the attorney is the attorney of record on the case.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 9, 2018)

Braineack said:


> So the problem really is the court is still operating online as it it's 1995?   is their website members.aol.com?


Geocities!


----------



## SquarePeg (Nov 9, 2018)

Along this same Big Brother watching us theme - this happened last week:

I was shopping at Target with Princess last weekend.  I looked at a lighted make up mirror and asked her if it was the same one that she has.  She said no.  I put it back.  I didn't google it or use a Target app or anything like that.  I picked up some make up brushes, looked at them and put them back.  Didn't mention them at all.  Later that day, both of those items popped up in my Facebook online ads feed.  Not the exact brand but an ad for make up brushes and another for a lighted mirror.  No way that was a coincidence.  I didn't google or shop online for either of those items.  

I was telling Princess about it and she told me how she and some friends were trying on jeans in a store at the mall and half an hour later an ad for jeans at that store popped up in their Instagram ads feed.  

I posted about this on Facebook and so many people had similar stories.


----------



## Overread (Nov 9, 2018)

Only thing I've noticed is that these days ebay keeps giving me advertisements in ad slots on websites and whatever I've been looking at recently is always "discounted now" in the banner . Then again Ebay has been sending me emails for years now with a "just for you" only for the content to be nothing like what I actually buy or look at on ebay (its always what THEY want me to buy). 

As for ads appearing for what you looked at in real shops I think some of that might just be selective bias in what you're noticing (same as how if you never had a red card but then bought one, you'd see red cars everywhere even if its not the " popular " colour at present). 
Other times it can happen because you wound up doing a search for those things at another time and forgot it. Other things are just common - jeans in a local store is pretty common so ads for that being sent out will hit people who have been in local stores who want jeans.


Sometimes being a geeky wargamer photographer person thingy has its bonuses - cause make-up, jeans and most other "common" things for me are just utilitarian so those ads never interest me so I never feel spied upon like that

As for yahoo yeah that's very sketchy and rather shocking that their system would not just read, but also follow links. Methinks that its going to bite yahoo somewhat hard considering its been accessing court documents and likely more besides.


----------



## compur (Nov 9, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> Along this same Big Brother watching us theme - this happened last week:
> 
> I was shopping at Target with Princess last weekend.  I looked at a lighted make up mirror and asked her if it was the same one that she has.  She said no.  I put it back.  I didn't google it or use a Target app or anything like that.  I picked up some make up brushes, looked at them and put them back.  Didn't mention them at all.  Later that day, both of those items popped up in my Facebook online ads feed.  Not the exact brand but an ad for make up brushes and another for a lighted mirror.  No way that was a coincidence.  I didn't google or shop online for either of those items.
> 
> ...



Now, _that _is creepy! 

Facebook evidently has a feature called “Location Services” that tracks your location via your phone so it wouldn't take much for them to get data on what store you were in and what part of that store you stopped at and, of course, your ID. So, data on anywhere you go with your phone will be mined by that software and they can then target ads accordingly. Or, do whatever else they want to do with the info gathered.

I think Google has similar software (and probably others do too).

Another reason I don't own a "smart" phone though I'm sure somebody is still tracking me to some degree via other means.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 10, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> Later that day, both of those items popped up in my Facebook online ads feed. Not the exact brand but an ad for make up brushes and another for a lighted mirror. No way that was a coincidence



No it wasn't, as mentioned above if you have the Facebook app on your phone you're not only telling them places you visit but a lot of other things. Thanks to the sophisticated software, and with the information you give them they're able to mine other information from public records, credit card companies, loyalty cards, etc., even if you're offline. Using the FB app on your phone or the multitude of other similar apps is like strapping a camera to your forehead. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...s-your-every-move-facts-vs-fiction/521613002/


----------



## snowbear (Nov 10, 2018)

There are inside location services that provide signals where GPS can't normally get, like shopping malls.  It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine those being able to pinpoint your location within a building, and comparing that to what merchandise is near by - a form of spatial analysis.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 10, 2018)

snowbear said:


> There are inside location services that provide signals where GPS can't normally get, like shopping malls. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine those being able to pinpoint your location within a building, and comparing that to what merchandise is near by - a form of spatial analysis.



Been doing it for awhile now https://lifehacker.com/how-retail-stores-track-you-using-your-smartphone-and-827512308


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Nov 10, 2018)

These “people” must be uninterested in me. I see very few ads that pertain to me.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 10, 2018)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> These “people” must be uninterested in me. I see very few ads that pertain to me.



If you knew the amount of information on you out there, it would freak you out. I just opened an online account at a bank, and as part of their verification process they asked me to answer questions like which of these streets did you live on in 1967, or what year was a certain vehicle I bought back in 1987, and which of these people do you know.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Nov 10, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> TreeofLifeStairs said:
> 
> 
> > These “people” must be uninterested in me. I see very few ads that pertain to me.
> ...



Those are easy. I wasn’t born yet in 1967, and I couldn’t drive in 1987.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 12, 2018)

Unless you wish to live like the Amish or are rich enough to own your own system, you have to live with the agreement you signed up for when you accepted the "free" service.

It is what they do, it is how they make a very good living. The fact that most folk could care less as long as they provide the services needed, is why they stay in business.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 2, 2019)

Guys. You didn't read the whole story. Yahoo intercepted a total of four emails, three of which were spam and the other was a letter from some lady to her cat talking about how Ronald Reagan wants to Make America Great Again. 

That was the extent of emails on Yahoo's servers, however, they share the information with Fancy Feast.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 2, 2019)

Gmail tracks what you're typing before you even send the email. Too creepy, I quit using both. How the 'mighty' are falling.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 2, 2019)

The creepy thing is how using multiple data sources and sophisticated AI software they are able to build a detailed profile, filling in the blanks by comparing different different data they do have. 

In their world data is money, the more data they have the more money they make. Showing me ads for clothing because I looked at something in a store is one thing, but who's limiting what they do Or how far they go with a digital footprint. If I buy a 6 pack of beer to drink while watching the football game, in the privacy of my home, do I want my car insurance company to be notified?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 4, 2019)

As I mentioned before unless you are off the grid, live like the Amish or are a rich recluse like Howard Hughes was, everyone that wants information about you can get it.

Even without specific details we all leave an information trail. I have a drivers license so I probably own  a car. My electric bill jumps in the summer time so I probably have air  conditioning, I charge gas on a regular basis so an estimate of how many miles I drive can be made, etc.

This info is not being studies by humans it is being analyses by computers with programs dedicate to filter out a particular sale demographic.

Hence I order something from Amazon, I am deluged by adds for similar products. Like it or not it works or businesses would not spend time and money to do it.

I learned a long time ago, you digitize anything, it will be available to  it world, eventually. It is the price we pay for the conveniences we like.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 4, 2019)

@Grandpa Ron I'm waiting for the  ability to clone myself as a digital being, thereby screwing up their whole tracking.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 4, 2019)

Cloning might help or it might just get you twice the junk mail. 

The point is, if you are going to live a contemporary life style  this stuff is unavoidable.  With rare exception, we all drive, use  electricity, have phones, and pay taxes etc. We need to, to pursue our photographic hobby 

The computers tracking these details do not belong to some secret agency that is tracking each person, they belong to a multitude of  organization that are looking for specific areas of product sales. 

If you want to feed your paranoia, It is also reasonable to believe that given enough motivation, this information could be accessed by law enforcement or even some clandestine organization.  

You too can join this group, lets say you specialize in a unique type of photography; there are research firms, that for a price, will tell you more than you care to know about your field of interest. 

Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 4, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> The point is, if you are going to live a contemporary life style this stuff is unavoidable



To a point, but the question is - who sets the limits? An interesting read Is privacy possible in the digital age? which leads to the assumption that privacy concerns in the digital world would not be necessary if everyone were accountable to the same transparency - individual, corporate, government, etc. The problem is that, transparency is far from equal. The article reminded me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the current Topsy Turvy world of data mining, there's a few "haves" and a lot of "havenots".


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 5, 2019)

Smoke, 

You have summed it up very nicely.  The limits are set by the the services you use and your decision to use it. Most of these companies are perfectly willing to tell you what they use this information for.  

Typically it is to inform you of potential saving that are available from them and from related business "that might be of interest to you".  It is a nice way of saying they are selling their address list. 

A few businesses will allow you to opt out or tell you they will not pass on your information. Many do not. It is up to the individual to determine what they want. 

However the truth of the matter is most folk do not care. They find the coupons and sales notices handy and the associated junk mail gets pitched. The "haves" in this case are the folks paying good money to send this junk and the "havenots" are the folk pitching it into the recycle bins.

The two areas where this get a bit dicey are public records and scam artists.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Feb 5, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> This has been known for awhile now, but the breadth and depth of it was really unknown until this week. Yahoo Mail is still scanning your emails for data to sell to advertisers My son is the IT Mgr of a large Federal Court. Most of the transactions and communications with the court from attorney is  supposed to be via secure email. It was only discovered this week that not only the email sent by attorneys via their Yahoo accounts was being scanned but that from the court back to that Yahoo account was being scanned as well. Even worse any links to court cases within the emails were being compromised and scanned as well. Yahoo didn't have any answers to why they were scanning privileged information other then they shouldn't be doing that. For the time being the courts are blocking any emails from or to Yahoo accounts.



Its pretty well known that all the big techs scan your stuff, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, NSA, M15, M16, Facebook.
Google owns Ancestry.com nothing suspect about that or the huge whistle blower problems there facing.  23andme  sold out to glaxo smith kleine, Their not out to get us individually but collectively, The spy agencies are to be fare.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 5, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> The two areas where this get a bit dicey are public records and scam artists.



The area where I see this getting dicey is the protection against illegal searches. Let's say XYZ data, mines all the data on liquor sales at local restaurants, from that and other sources their AI can pull a profile that links you specifically that says on a certain night of any given week at a certain hour there is a likelihood that you might test over the legal limit behind the wheel of your car.  Law enforcement subscribers would know the exact place and time to check you, and you would have no protection from unreasonable searches because all the data was public. Law enforcement on the other hand is under no obligation to share the data they collect on you. A simplified example but feasible given today's technology.

I haven't started wearing a tin foil hat yet, but I see some real threats with data companies self monitoring themselves. As to the decision to "opt out" you aren't given that option when a profile is "built" from multiple sources with AI assumptions filling in the blanks.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Feb 5, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > The two areas where this get a bit dicey are public records and scam artists.
> ...



Walmart knows when people are pregnant based on their purchase history and that is well proven by their own marketing strategies.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 5, 2019)

In the end Technology marches on. But Technology makes no moral decisions.

The same technology that brings us Photoshop, smart phones and delivers fundamental education to remote corners of the world, also helps delivers child porn and illicit drugs. 

It is how you use technology that matters and society has been struggling with that since the dawn of time.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 5, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> In the end Technology marches on. But Technology makes no moral decisions.



True that. As in the OP, Yahoo's bot didn't know private from non private. Humans programmed it to click on links, scan data and keep clicking till it can't go any further. Humans can make moral decisions, but unfortunately their acceptable level can be tainted by money.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 5, 2019)

I’m interested in doing one of those ancestry analyses but have held off as I don’t think their privacy policies are sufficient.  And once your DNA is out there, who’s to say it won’t end up on some list with the health insurance companies as uninsurable because you are predisposed to something or other.  

Also,  seems like a lot of family dirt is being aired out because of these tests.  Not sure I really want to know!


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 5, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> Also, seems like a lot of family dirt is being aired out because of these tests. Not sure I really want to know!



Sometimes that dirt is best left covered. Before she passed my Great Aunt asked me to visit so she could enlighten me on the family history that was "not for general public knowledge". She talked non-stop for 3 hours, after which it took another 2 hours to get my chin off the floor, she told all. Politics, moonshine, sex, gambling, there was enough there to make E.L. James blush.  Caused some hard feelings with my only remaining Aunt (the family matriarch at the time), because there were things she would have preferred stayed buried, and a few things even she didn't know. Now I'm the oldest of the family, and frankly like my Aunt I'm not sure if it needs to be passed on. Then again, I may just write bestseller and go out with a bang. LOL


----------

