topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • September 25, 2018, 05:57 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 13 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Privacy (collected references)  (Read 3286 times)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references)
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2018, 04:05 AM »
Some valid points from theregister.co.uk:
Facebook insists it has 'no plans' to exploit your personal banking info for ads – just as we have 'no plans' to trust it
After all, never say never!
By Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco 7 Aug 2018 at 20:4432

Image [Denial]

Analysis: Facebook has denied it is seeking to suck up netizens' bank account details, claiming it just wants to connect bank customers to their bank's chat accounts and give useful financial updates. ...

Copied from: Facebook insists it has 'no plans' to exploit your personal banking info for ads – just as we have 'no plans' to trust it • The Register - <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/07/facebook_banking_data/>

Yeah, right.

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,954
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references)
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2018, 08:04 PM »
Looks like the Ugandan government  could be in the vanguard when it comes to, uh, privacy...
 ...Uganda orders ISPs to block Ugandans from accessing Pornographic Websites   Nice one!    :Thmbsup:

Except they're 2 or 3 years behind Russia.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - discrimination against vulnerable minorities.
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2018, 12:12 AM »
The other end of the loss of Privacy is where its loss makes the loser potentially vulnerable, or more vulnerable than they were before, leading to potential risk - e.g., exposure to demographic stratification and targeting, with subsequent stigmatisation, discrimination, harm/loss, even to the extent of circumventing laws that were expressly established to avoid such risks to these vulnerable groups/minorities.
So, right on cue, here's a classic recent example - and yes, Facebook are behind it, because they can make money out of it (of course) - and are doing so. What a surprise (NOT).    :o
From the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD No. 18-085
HUD Public Affairs
(202) 708-0685
FOR RELEASE
Friday
August 17, 2018
HUD FILES HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AGAINST FACEBOOK
Secretary-initiated complaint alleges platform allows advertisers to discriminate

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced today a formal complaint against Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act by allowing landlords and home sellers to use its advertising platform to engage in housing discrimination.

HUD claims Facebook enables advertisers to control which users receive housing-related ads based upon the recipient's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, and/or zip code. Facebook then invites advertisers to express unlawful preferences by offering discriminatory options, allowing them to effectively limit housing options for these protected classes under the guise of 'targeted advertising.' Read HUD's complaint against Facebook.

"The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination including those who might limit or deny housing options with a click of a mouse," said Anna María Farías, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "When Facebook uses the vast amount of personal data it collects to help advertisers to discriminate, it's the same as slamming the door in someone's face."

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. HUD's Secretary-initiated complaint follows the Department's investigation into Facebook's advertising platform which includes targeting tools that enable advertisers to filter prospective tenants or homebuyers based on these protected classes.

For example, HUD's complaint alleges Facebook's platform violates the Fair Housing Act. It enables advertisers to, among other things:
  • display housing ads either only to men or women;
  • not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture";   
  • not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age;
  • to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible."
  • not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia."
  • draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.
Additionally, Facebook promotes its advertising targeting platform for housing purposes with "success stories" for finding "the perfect homeowners," "reaching home buyers," "attracting renters" and "personalizing property ads."

In addition, today the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) filed a statement of interest, joined in by HUD, in U.S. District Court on behalf of a number of private litigants challenging Facebook's advertising platform.

HUD Secretary-Initiated Complaints

The Secretary of HUD may file a fair housing complaint directly against those whom the Department believes may be in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Secretary-Initiated Complaints are appropriate in cases, among others, involving significant issues that are national in scope or when the Department is made aware of potential violations of the Act and broad public interest relief is warranted or where HUD does not know of a specific aggrieved person or injured party that is willing or able to come forward. A Fair Housing Act complaint, including a Secretary initiated complaint, is not a determination of liability.

A Secretary-Initiated Complaint will result in a formal fact-finding investigation. The party against whom the complaint is filed will be provided notice and an opportunity to respond. If HUD's investigation results in a determination that reasonable cause exists that there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act, a charge of discrimination may be filed. Throughout the process, HUD will seek conciliation and voluntary resolution. Charges may be resolved through settlement, through referral to the Department of Justice, or through an administrative determination.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. In commemoration, HUD, local communities, and fair housing organizations across the country have coordinated a variety of activities to enhance fair housing awareness, highlight HUD's fair housing enforcement efforts, and end housing discrimination in the nation. For a list of activities, log onto www.hud.gov/fairhousingis50.

Persons who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY).

###

HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet
at www.hud.gov and https://espanol.hud.gov.

You can also connect with HUD on social media and follow Secretary Carson on Twitter and Facebook or sign up for news alerts on HUD's Email List.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - the unmitigated gall of LivreVisage.
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2018, 01:53 PM »
Ah! Found it! There's gold in them thar DCF datamines. I knew it was here somewhere. Just took me a while to find it though - a past comment on the DC Forum about LifeLock and which happens to be an apposite quote apropos of the recent HUD v. Facebook item, above: (my emphasis)
LifeLock has been running to center on the Equifax breach, with ads and press statements saying how the breach shows how important its own services cost: up to $29.99 a month can be to preserve you from identity theft.
...
Here’s what LifeLock isn’t spreading so widely: When you buy its security, you’re signing up for credit recording and monitoring services provided by, yes, Equifax.
...You just can't make this stuff up: Full Article here

Maybe it's just my rather dark sense of humor, but I just couldn't stop laughing after I read that. The unmitigated gall of corporations these days is just flat-out mind blowing.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - RUMPEL - it's YOUR data, after all!
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2018, 01:59 PM »
RUMPEL web browser's aim : take back control of your personal data:
Interesting open source project led by the University of Warwick. Its aim is to help users keep track of where information about them is stored online so that they can actually -- personally -- benefit from it. An important issue; whether this is a viable solution or not is another one...   :)
[...] a marketing professor at the University of Warwick who led RUMPEL's development, said: "It's time for people to claim their data from the internet."
"The aim of RUMPEL is to empower users and enable them to be served by the ocean of data about them that's stored in all kinds of places online, so that it benefits them and not just the businesses and organisations that harvest it," she added.
"The strapline 'Your Data, Your Way' reflects our determination to let people lead smarter lives by bringing their digital lives back under their own control."
TechRadar article : New web browser lets you take back control of your personal data
And the GitHub RUMPEL project.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - Could you please LIKE me?
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2018, 06:55 AM »
Could you please LIKE me?
There is a series of short spoofs from "Black Mirror", offering a glimpse of where we might potentially be heading.


wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 9,715
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references)
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2018, 10:05 AM »
^ Black Mirror is, in general, a very twisted view of several small concepts we take for granted in everyday life.  I recommend the series.  That particular one is very insightful into our current state of the world.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - BI Rules?
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2018, 04:45 AM »
The amusing Black Mirror video above, though artificial, is arguably a prescient comment on the implicit risks inherent in a tendency for "oversharing" and/or "data leakage" in the IT-enabled SNM (Social Network Marketplace) and other personal-data-related databases (e.g., health, insurance, banking, education), where private data that one might have previously perceived as being peculiar and useful/relevant in one context only is subsequently seen to be useful/relevant in another, or maybe many other contexts. These are typically the data connections and interconnections that the SNM operators and data miners would tend to seek/exploit, for financial gain.

When I was contracted in 2003 to get a failed data analysis project back on the rails, I learned quite a lot. It was a complex IT project to implement a BI (Business Intelligence) system and we had to train the users in the application of BI (it's actually quite powerful and hairy stuff) to meet the growing and complex business needs of the power (energy) company who had contracted me into the project recovery role. I learned that what the Defence sector had always taught was true - that all data/information can be interconnected at some stage - and that, for BI, the world could be simply envisaged as one or more universes of dynamic data - each having its own peculiar descriptive and dynamic data model and that, as in the popular SF concept of parallel universes, there was the potential to interlink these data universes (mass aggregations of dynamic data sets), constantly combining/recombining and drawing data from one to the other, enabling the BI analyst to discover data relationships in a way that would probably not have previously been feasible on such a mass scale, using the then prevailing technologies.

Fast forward to 2018, where we can perhaps now better understand why we might have the apparent privacy shambles that we see around us. It was a gold-rush, opportunistic, every man for himself. Presumably the Google/Facebook founders (and others) would have seen it coming. There were little/no regulations to limit or constrain the progress of BI and its application in the field of mass demographics. Now that some regulations have belatedly been or are being implemented, it arguably may be too late anyway - locking the stable door after the horse has bolted; Pandora's box has already been opened.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 08:04 PM by IainB, Reason: Minor correction. »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references)
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2018, 05:39 AM »
Following up on the BI comment above: I came across a link to what seemed an interesting viewpoint from the Economist, though from experience I'd suggest taking a pinch of salt with anything they nowadays publish - just in case, like, and especially when prefixed with the ominous religio-politically ideological cliché "Open":
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Open Future
Toward defining privacy expectations in an age of oversharing

Our digital data deserves protection, writes Margot Kaminski, a law professor

Open Future
Aug 16th 2018by MARGOT KAMINSKI
What assurances of privacy do we have in this digital age? Until this year, the quick answer was: effectively none. We share personal data with companies, who in turn share it with other companies and the government, with few if any legal means of individual redress or control. But if 2018 will be remembered as the year of Cambridge Analytica—a British data-mining company that allegedly influenced both British and American elections by targeting voters using personal data—it will also be remembered as the year that privacy law finally started catching up to the Internet.

In America, the “third-party doctrine” has long governed privacy law. This view holds that one can have no privacy expectations in information shared with a third party. The government could obtain a list of phone numbers you called without a warrant, for instance, because you shared that information with a phone company.

This runs counter to most people’s expectations, especially today. Privacy is many things to many people, but one thing it is not is absolute secrecy. We share sensitive information with our doctors; we hold whispered conversations in public places; we rely on practical obscurity even in big cities; and we disclose our most intimate information by text and by email.

Helen Nissenbaum, an ethicist at Cornell University, refers to the foundation of our digital-privacy expectations as “contextual integrity”. When we reveal information in one context, we trust that it won’t pop up to surprise us in another.

Another way to think of it is that we regularly use perceived features of our environments, both physical and social, to manage degrees of disclosure. An email service that uses a mailbox as its logo signals that email will be kept between sender and recipient—just like a regular letter—even if it is in fact stored on a company’s servers.

In June 2018, however, the Supreme Court struck a serious and welcome blow to the third-party doctrine in its Carpenter v. United States ruling. That case asked whether police needed a warrant to access someone’s mobile-phone location data. The Court held that historic mobile-phone location data deserved privacy protections, even if it is shared (often unknowingly) with a mobile-phone service provider.

The Court recognised that what used to be non-sensitive data—a record of your travels through public places—has, in the age of big data, effectively been converted into sensitive information. When gathered en masse and analysed, where someone travels can reveal her religion, health problems, sexual preferences and political affiliations. The Court thus recognised that privacy harms can trigger a wealth of related harms, chilling freedom of speech and freedom of association.

While 2018 brought paradigm shifts to American privacy law, in Europe it brought the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The significance of the GDPR goes beyond the annoying barrage of privacy notices that popped up in May. It establishes enforceable individual transparency and control rights.

But the GDPR’s real impact will be within companies, behind the scenes. Backed by significant penalties for breaches (up to 4% of worldwide annual revenue), the GDPR imposes a series of duties on companies, regardless of whether individuals invoke their privacy rights. It requires companies to articulate legitimate reasons for collecting data; to collect only the data that they need; to design new products in ways that protect individual rights; and sometimes to appoint privacy officers and conduct privacy impact-assessments.

At first glance, the gap between Europe and America still appears enormous. The EU now has the GDPR; America continues to lack comprehensive federal data privacy law, relying instead on a patchwork of consumer protection, state laws, and sector-specific laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

But two recent events have resulted in a surprising array of commonalities: the above-mentioned Carpenter case, and California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CPA), which California passed less than a month after the Carpenter ruling, and which creates an American version of data-protection law.

The California CPA governs not just information that people share directly with companies, but also personal data held by commercial data-brokers. Just as Carpenter suggests that legal protections follow even shared personal data, the CPA imposes transparency and control requirements even on companies that have no direct relationship with consumers. In this way, the CPA represents a shift towards the data protection model embraced in the GDPR. Legal protection travels with the data, regardless of whether or not there is a consumer relationship.

This is not to say that Europe and America are converging. For one, the CPA applies only to California residents (although because California is such a big market the law may influence policies for all Americans—referred to in the context of automobile regulations as the “California effect”). America also has a robust, and in some situations increasingly deregulatory, free speech right in the First Amendment that will likely come into conflict with deletion and disclosure rights.

But there is a growing transatlantic consensus emerging on privacy in the digital age. Sharing data no longer obviates privacy. Privacy protections now increasingly travel with personal information, even if that information is something a company has inferred rather than collected. Both legal systems also increasingly recognise that privacy is, perhaps counterintuitively, deeply linked to transparency: people cannot exert control or request remedies if they do not know where their information is going.

Perhaps most significantly, both legal regimes now exhibit a growing awareness of how linked privacy is to other well-recognised legal harms such as chilling effects on free expression or discrimination against individuals. Even if America does not enact a federal privacy law, the age of free data and diminishing data privacy looks to be rapidly ending.

Margot Kaminski is a professor at Colorado Law. She teaches, researches and writes on the intersection of law and technology.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 08:00 PM by IainB, Reason: Minor correction. »

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 9,715
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references)
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2018, 08:51 AM »
The amusing Black Mirror video above, though artificial, is arguably a prescient comment on the implicit risks inherent in a tendency for "oversharing" and/or "data leakage" in the IT-enabled SNM (Social Network Marketplace) and other personal-data-related databases (e.g., health, insurance, banking, education), where private data that one might have previously perceived as being peculiar and useful/relevant in one context only is subsequently seen to be useful/relevant in another, or maybe many other contexts. These are typically the data connections and interconnections that the SNM operators and data miners would tend to seek/exploit, for financial gain.

When I was contracted in 2003 to get a failed data analysis project back on the rails, I learned quite a lot. It was a complex IT project to implement a BI (Business Intelligence) system and we had to train the users in the application of BI (it's actually quite powerful and hairy stuff) to meet the growing and complex business needs of the power (energy) company who had contracted me into the project recovery role. I learned that what the Defence sector had always taught was true - that all data/information can be interconnected at some stage - and that, for BI, the world could be simply envisaged as one or more universes of dynamic data - each having its own peculiar descriptive and dynamic data model and that, as in the popular SF concept of parallel universes, there was the potential to interlink these data universes (mass aggregations of dynamic data sets), constantly combining/recombining and drawing data from one to the other, enabling the BI analyst to discover data relationships in a way that would probably not have previously been feasible on such a mass scale, using the then prevailing technologies.

Fast forward to 2018, where we can perhaps now better understand why we might have the apparent privacy shambles that we see around us. It was a gold-rush, opportunistic, every man for himself. Presumably the Google/Facebook founders (and others) would have seen it coming. There were little/no regulations to limit or constrain the progress of BI and its application in the field of mass demographics. Now that some regulations have belatedly been or are being implemented, it arguably may be too late anyway - locking the stable door after the horse has bolted; Pandora's box has already been been opened.

It's arguably too late for any of us that are already born and have any social media links.  You'd have to have someone aware of not only what they share, but what others share about them.  You can make it harder to make the links, but I'd posit that it's impossible to restrict data after it has already been ingested into the system of data that surrounds us.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy - Pandora's box.
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2018, 10:13 AM »
Mythological basis of the Pandora's box idiom:
According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in his care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world.[4] Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind – usually translated as Hope, though it could also have the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation".[5]

From this story has grown the idiom "to open (a) Pandora's box", meaning to do or start something that will cause many unforeseen problems.[6] Its modern, more colloquial equivalent is "to open a can of worms".[7]
Source: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Pandora%27s_box
The thing about "Pandora's Box" was that the contents (the troubles), when once released into the world as a result of Pandora's curiosity, were enduring and timeless and apparently could never be put back into the box, thus adversely affecting all humankind over time, from that point onwards.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
A salutary tale with a recommended privacy sanitisation list, from Samizdata.net:
(Copied below.)
The Shadow Education Secretary wants to make teachers more vulnerable
tags: Civil liberty & Regulation, Education & Academia, Internet, Privacy & Panopticon, UK affairs
Natalie Solent (Essex) - September 23rd, 2018

The Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner MP (Lab), has called for a ban on anonymous online accounts.

The education spokesperson also called for social media companies to ban anonymous accounts, complaining at a fringe event organised by the Guardian in Liverpool that most of the people that abused her online did so without using their real names.

Rayner said that social media firms should take greater responsibility for their users and complained in particular that Facebook seemed to have indicated that politicians should accept a higher level of abuse.

When asked what she thought about social media, Rayner said: “One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.”

Rayner conceded that using real names would not stop abuse but “it would certainly help a little bit. I think they should do more, they do have a responsibility for online”.
___________________________________

As I mentioned earlier, Angela Rayner is the Shadow Education Secretary. That ought to mean that she is aware that teachers, like MPs, are often subject to harassment. The Times Educational Supplement had an article on that very subject just a few days ago: “Why your social account is not as private as you think”. It began:

The teacher’s Facebook account was set to private. She was certain of that. Yet, in the past week, she had received four friend requests from former pupils. She could not work out how they had found her.

So, as I am a researcher at the Greater Manchester Police – and her friend – she asked me to take a look. Within 10 minutes, I had not just found her, but I also had her full name, her partner’s name, the school she worked at, the name of one of her children and multiple images of the street she lives on.
___________________________________

The writer, Chris Glover, proceeded to give ten tips that teachers should employ to protect themselves:
  • 1. Keep accounts separate.
  • 2. Vary usernames.
  • 3. Check posts about you.
  • 4. Beware of public posts.
  • 5. Review privacy settings.\
  • 6. Don’t follow your school account.
  • 7. Avoid using your real name.
  • 8. Change the friends-list setting.
  • 9. Switch off location.
  • 10. Delete dormant accounts.

Following the above advice should help ensure that teachers can enjoy participating in life online while minimising the very real risk of being tracked down by former or current pupils bearing a grudge, or simply by people whom it is best to keep at arms length for professional or safeguarding reasons.

Until a Labour government gets in and makes Nos. (2) and (7) illegal outright, and demands that all of your personal details are held in one place by a social media company so as to be conveniently available for hackers and identity thieves.

The context here (for the benefit of non-British readers) is that the UK currently has a Conservative-led government, so the Labour party is the party "in opposition", as it were, and has "shadow ministers" for each of the main ministerial departments, of which Education is one.
There are 2 rather depressing things about this:
  • 1. Rayner - who is in the important role of Shadow Education Secretary  - would need to know about current issues in Education and would be expected to have her fingers on the Education pulse, as it were, yet she was apparently recommending a ban on anonymous online accounts, and she would have presumably been stating that as a Labour policy approach.

  • 2. However, despite being Shadow Education Secretary, Rayner seemed to have been unaware of the article in The Times Educational Supplement on this rather important matter, published a few days prior. This looks to be a classic clueless and foot-in-mouth response by the Shadow Education Secretary and it could have adverse consequences - e.g., tend to make floating voters (and possibly others) think twice before voting Labour in the next general election.

Though it is rather telling - and Labour voters could be forgiven for weeping or doing a face-palm over this, just as the other voters could be forgiven for having a LOL moment - if we look on the bright side, then the article  in The Times Educational Supplement gave us 10 very good points for improving privacy. These are points that we could extract and all follow to our advantage - i.e., not just teachers - and if Rayner had not made the gaff that she did, then we might never have heard of the 10 points and they would have remained buried in the article in The Times Educational Supplement.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 7,195
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Privacy (collected references) - more privacy sanitisation.
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2018, 03:47 AM »
Another potentially helpful privacy sanitisation list from abine.com (too long to post here, so just the link): 8 Steps to Secure Your Facebook Privacy Settings