New Attack on the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act

Deep Links - Tue, 04/10/2018 - 18:37

A new Illinois bill would strip residents of critical protection of their biometric privacy, including their right to decide whether or not a business may harvest and monetize data about their faces and fingerprints. Given the growing public outrage over how Facebook and Cambridge Analytica handled sensitive user data, this is the wrong time to reduce privacy protections.

Today, EFF sent Illinois legislators a letter opposing this bill. In February, EFF sent a letter opposing an earlier version of the bill.

The existing Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is the strongest law of its kind in our country. Among the key measures that protect our rights:

  • BIPA requires private entities, including big for-profit businesses, to obtain consent from a person before collecting or disclosing their biometric identifiers.
  • BIPA requires private entities that possess such identifiers to timely destroy them: when the purpose of collection ends, and in no event more than three years after the last contact with the subject.
  • BIPA requires private entities to securely store such identifiers.
  • BIPA allows parties injured by violations of these rules to file lawsuits to hold businesses accountable.

Our biometrics are easy to capture. Once captured, we generally cannot change our biometrics, unlike our credit card numbers, or even our names. Databases of biometric information are ripe targets for data thieves. That’s why EFF strongly supports Illinois BIPA as a necessary means to protect our biometric privacy from intrusion by private entities.

The new Illinois bill (S.B. 3053) would create broad new exemptions from BIPA, and thus greatly reduce the biometric privacy of all Illinoisans. For example, it would exempt face recognition technology, biometrics captured by employers about their employees, and biometrics captured by stores about their patrons. It also would exempt the many businesses that comply with other privacy statutes, that do not link captured biometrics to confidential information, and that do not store biometrics for more than 24 hours.

EFF has resisted other attacks on Illinois BIPA and supported efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

The Illinois BIPA is the gold standard for biometric privacy protection nationwide. We hope Illinois legislators will refuse to compromise on their constituents’ privacy.

Categories: Privacy

European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.

Deep Links - Tue, 04/10/2018 - 16:06

EFF has been writing about the upcoming European Digital Single Market directive on copyright for a long time now. But it's time to put away the keyboard, and pick up the phone, because the proposal just got worse—and it's headed for a crucial vote on June 20-21. 

For those who need no further introduction to the directive, which would impose an upload filtering mandate on Internet platforms (Article 13) and a link tax in favor of news publishers (Article 11), you can skip to the bottom of this post, where we link to an action that European readers can take to make their voice heard. But if you're new to this, here's a short version of how we got here and why we're worried.

A Brief History

 The European Copyright Directive was enacted in 2001 and is now woefully out of date. Thanks in large part to the work of Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda, many good ideas for updating European copyright law were put forward in a report of the European Parliament in July 2015. The European Commission threw out most of these ideas, and instead released a legislative proposal in October 2016 that focused on giving new powers to publishers. That proposal was referred to several of the committees of the European Parliament, with the Parliament's Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee taking the lead.

As the final text must also be accepted by the Council of the European Union (which can be considered as the second part of the EU's bicameral legislature), the Council Presidency has recently been weighing in with its own "compromise" proposals (although this is something of a misnomer, as they do little to improve the Commission's original text, and in some respects make it worse). Not to be outdone, German MEP (Member of the European Parliament) Axel Voss last month introduced a new set of his own proposals [PDF] for "compromise," which are somehow worse still. Since Voss leads the JURI committee, this is a big problem.

Link Tax Proposal: A Turn for the (Even) Worse

The biggest and most worrisome changes are to the "link tax" proposal, which would establish a special copyright-like fee to be paid by websites to news publishers, in exchange for the privilege of using short snippets of quoted text as part of a link to the original news article. Voss's latest amendments would make the link tax an inalienable right, that news publishers cannot waive even if they choose to.

The practical effect of this could be to make it impossible for a news publisher to publish their stories for free use, for example by using a Creative Commons license. When a similar inalienable link tax was passed into law in Spain, the country's biggest news aggregation website, which had been Google News, simply closed its Spanish operation. We can well imagine similar results if the link tax went Europe-wide.

That's not all. Voss proposes that the beneficiaries of the link tax should include press agencies (who often provide the raw information based upon which other journalists write stories), and that libraries should also be responsible for paying extra fees to publishers in "compensation" for their rental and lending activities.

Although Voss hasn't managed to make the upload filtering proposal any worse than it was before, it was plenty bad enough already. Although targeted mainly at sites that host video and music uploaded by users, it's broad enough to extend to extend to any sort of user-uploaded content, including code contributed to platforms like Github, and even text contributed to a user-edited encyclopedia (although Voss would support an amendment excluding non-profit encyclopedias from the law, which may or may not save Wikipedia).

How You Can Take Action

These proposals benefit large publishers, but punish those who use the Internet as an open platform for sharing and innovation. Europeans are running out of time to convince their representatives to reject them. Our friends at Mozilla have developed an excellent tool that Europeans can use to directly contact their representatives to deliver a simple message—delete Article 11, delete Article 13, and instead give us copyright laws that promote competition and innovation online.

Take Action

Demand fair copyright policies

Categories: Privacy

What We Want To Learn From Zuckerberg's Congressional Testimonies This Week

Deep Links - Mon, 04/09/2018 - 19:55

It’s past time for Facebook to come clean about how it is handling user data. After the latest Cambridge Analytica news broke the dam on over a decade of Facebook privacy concerns, Mark Zuckerberg is heading to to Washington, D.C. this week for two days of Congressional testimony. On Tuesday, he’ll appear before the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees, and on Wednesday the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The last thing we need from Zuckerberg at these hearings is more apologies. What we want is information and accountability, and not just in connection with discrete scandals like Cambridge Analytica. Congress should be asking Facebook for a detailed account of what data Facebook has shared with third parties, what it has done to prevent misuse of that data, what it told users about how it would handle their information, and what steps it will take in the future to respect users' privacy rights.

And because this is about more than just Facebook, Congress should also be asking whether Facebook will serve as an industry leader by publicly embracing key privacy-protective principles.

A company ethos of connection and growth at all costs cannot co-exist with users' privacy rights.

Beyond nailing down down the details of specific cases like the Cambridge Analytica mess and the revelation of paid Russian propaganda on the social media giant's platform, we hope lawmakers will also keep in mind the larger tension at the core of each one of Facebook's privacy missteps and scandals: A company ethos of connection and growth at all costs cannot co-exist with users' privacy rights. Facebook operates by collecting, storing, and making it easy for third parties to use unprecedented amounts of user data. Until that changes, the privacy and integrity concerns that spurred these hearings are here to stay.

Getting to the Bottom of Facebook’s Word Games

There is no shortage of questions and angles that Congress members can grill Zuckerberg on—from the Cambridge Analytica fiasco that exposed the data of approximately 1 in 5 Americans, to paid propaganda’s effect on the 2016 election, to private censorship, to the role of AI technologies in detecting and mitigating all of the above.

And Zuckerberg will no doubt weave word games and roundabout language into his answers to distract from the real problem.

Here is some language to watch out for—and for lawmakers to drill down on when they hear it:

“Bad actors”

In responding to Cambridge Analytica, Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives have focused on bad actors, malicious third parties, and hackers of great scale and sophistication. But in the vast majority of cases, these parties did not have to “hack” into Facebook's systems to violate user privacy or manipulate user attention. Instead, they simply scooped up the user data that Facebook made available to them, using the tools that Facebook provided. The problem is not the actions of any “bad actors." The problem is with Facebook. The company collects and retains unprecedented amounts of user information, fails to provide meaningful transparency, and makes it easy to for third parties to find, analyze, and even abuse this information without users’ knowledge or consent.

The problem is not the actions of any “bad actors." The problem is with Facebook.

Facebook’s recently announced API changes—which we can expect this week’s hearings to delve into—do a lot to lock away user information from third-party developers, but little to protect user information from Facebook itself. With one notable exception (limiting the retention of Android users’ call and SMS logging data, which received international media scrutiny), the company has made no changes toward collecting or storing less user data for its own purposes. By locking down its APIs, Facebook is saying that only it and it alone can be trusted with user data. Now users have even less power to use third-party tools that they do trust to explore the data held by Facebook and hold the company accountable.

Selling or not selling user data

Zuckerberg has repeatedly insisted that Facebook does not, and never will, sell user data to advertisers. While it is true that Facebook does not sell user data directly to advertisers, this point functions to distract from the indisputable fact that the company does sell access to user data and attention in the form of targeted advertising spots. No matter how Zuckerberg slices it, Facebook’s business model revolves around monetization of user data.

What Facebook knows about you   

Last week, while on the record with reporters, Zuckerberg claimed, “The vast majority of data that Facebook knows about you is because you chose to share it.” But that simply does not square with several aspects of how Facebook collects and analyzes user data, including (but not limited to) third-party tracking in the form of Facebook’s “like” buttons across the web, shadow profiles, call and text logs, and computational inferences that can conclude characteristics and preferences a user never told Facebook about.

Zuckerberg’s language here misses the critical distinction between the information a person actively shares, like photos or status updates, and information that Facebook takes from users without their knowledge or consent.

“Idealistic and optimistic”

In the statement Zuckerberg will deliver at his hearing in the House on Wednesday, he begins by describing Facebook as an “idealistic and optimistic company” that was focused on fostering personal connections and got caught off-guard by abuse on its platform.

If Facebook didn’t see this coming, it’s because it wasn’t listening.

But that posture can only go so far. If Facebook didn’t see this coming, it’s because it wasn’t listening. EFF, other civil liberties groups, and the press have been sounding the alarm on aspects of today’s Cambridge Analytica scandal since as early as 2009. On top of that, the abusive consequences of prolific data collection are predictable and well-documented. It’s willful ignorance if a company engaged in that kind of data collection didn’t do their homework.

Back to the Big Question

We can expect Zuckerberg to apologize for past mistakes, explain the challenges his platform faces, and outline the fixes Facebook is ready to roll out. But the big question is: Will he be able to convince users and members of Congress that any of those fixes is substantial enough to amount to real change?

The CEO’s testimonies are an opportunity for Congress to shed light not only on Facebook’s “black box” algorithms but also on its data operation as a whole. That means confronting the hard, fundamental questions about how an advertising-powered, surveillance-based platform can provide adequate user privacy protections.

In particular, Congress should beware of offers from Zuckerberg to better control the misuse of user data and expression by granting his company and other tech giants an even greater, more exclusive role as the opaque guardians of that data. Facebook has had a long history of saying, “Trust us. We know what we’re doing," without offering much transparency or accountability to their users. Congress should take this opportunity to trust Zuckerberg a little less, and Facebooks’ users—who are also, coincidentally, their voters—a little more.

Categories: Privacy

Catalog of Missing Devices: TextToSpeech

Deep Links - Mon, 04/09/2018 - 15:50

In 2009, Amazon introduced, then rescinded a feature that allowed Kindle owners to have their Kindles read any text aloud. This was a godsend for people with print disabilities and anyone who wanted to have text converted to speech. But even though people had bought devices and titles with this feature in mind, Amazon caved to a few audiobook publishers and reached into peoples' devices, removing this feature from them. Text-to-speech is no more or less illegal on your Kindle than it is on your laptop, phone or other device -- but if you have to bypass Amazon's DRM to install the feature, you risk liability under Section 1201 of the DMCA.

Categories: Privacy

The U.S. CLOUD Act and the EU: A Privacy Protection Race to the Bottom

Deep Links - Mon, 04/09/2018 - 08:05

U.S. President Donald Trump’s $1.3 trillion government spending bill, signed March 23rd, offered 2,323 pages of budgeting on issues ranging from domestic drug policy to defense. The last-minute rush to fund the U.S. government through this all-or-nothing “omnibus” presented legislators with a golden opportunity to insert policies that would escape deep public scrutiny. Case in point: the Clarifying Lawful Use of Overseas Data (CLOUD) Act, whose broad ramifications for undermining global privacy should not be underestimated, was snuck into the final pages of the bill before the vote.

Between the U.S. CLOUD Act and new European Union (EU) efforts to dismantle international rules for cross-border law enforcement investigations, the United States and EU are racing against one another towards an unfortunate finish-line: weaker privacy protections around the globe. 

The U.S. CLOUD Act allows the U.S. President to enter into “executive agreements” with qualifying foreign governments in order to directly access data held by U.S. technology companies at a lower standard than required by the Constitution of the United States. To qualify, foreign governments would need to be certified by the U.S. Attorney General, and meet certain human rights standards set in the act. Those qualifying governments will have the ability to bypass the legal safeguards of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) regime.

In addition, U.S. law enforcement agencies (from local police to federal agents) can now compel U.S. and foreign technology[1] companies to disclose communications data of U.S. and foreign users that is stored overseas, regardless of the data’s physical location, potentially bypassing the countries’ privacy and data protection laws. Permitting the U.S. access to data which can be located anywhere sets a dangerous precedent for other countries, who are likely to demand similar access to data held in the United States. Such expansion of U.S. law enforcement power breaks the principle of territoriality, the core component of international law, and will produce a domino effect of information requests that overstep responding countries’ privacy safeguards.

Leaked documents obtained by the media network EURACTIV revealed the European Commission’s plans to launch on April 17th two proposals: A regulation on access to and preservation of electronic data held by companies that mirrors the CLOUD act’s self-serving agenda; and a Directive "to appoint a legal representative within the [EU] bloc". 

According to EURACTIV, the regulation would grant EU member states the power to circumvent the responding countries’ privacy laws in fulfilling information requests. If passed, countries could demand data access of technology companies within 10 days or, in the case of an “imminent threat to life or physical integrity of a person or to a critical infrastructure,” technology companies could be compelled to comply within just six hours. Such demands would apply to internet companies such as Google, social networks like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as cloud technology providers, domain name registries, registrars and “digital marketplaces” that allow consumers and/or traders to conclude peer-to-peer transactions.

The directive, as reported by EURACTIV, will force any company collecting data in the EU to appoint a legal representative to the EU bloc to address law enforcement data-requests. This demand would be particularly onerous for companies who do not even have an office in the EU, let alone store their data in the EU. Requiring all companies to maintain an EU legal representative will stifle innovation by further stacking the deck in favor of tech giants who have the resources to comply.

Prior to the announcement of the U.S. CLOUD act, the European Commission had already begun a process to improve access to electronic evidence within EU member states. On June 2017, the European Commission presented to EU Justice Ministers a set of options to improve cross-border access to e-evidence. Ministers then asked the Commission to come forward with concrete legislative proposals. A public consultation that was held from August to October 2017 gave some hints of the EU’s intention to adopt legislation that would enable far-reaching information demands on companies located not only within, but outside the European Union, as well.

In a statement on how the European Union can “improve” cross border access to data, Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality said:

"Our current investigation tools are not fit for the way the digital world works … These tools still work within the limits of the principle of territoriality, which is at odds with the cross-border nature of e-services and data flows. As a result investigators' work is slowed down when dealing with cybercrime, terrorism and other forms of criminal activities, even where such crimes are not cross-border in nature. This is why we launched an expert consultation in 2016."

However, the EU proposals—coupled with the U.S. CLOUD Act—signal a potentially dangerous and uncoordinated race to the bottom. The principle of territoriality has provided an important mechanism for maintaining privacy standards in a world where data is increasingly available from multiple sources operating in multiple locations around the globe. Although territorial protections for privacy were being litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case United States v. Microsoft, before the CLOUD Act, U.S. officials could not ignore local privacy safeguards when seeking access to data hosted in a foreign state. (Just last week, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a motion to the court to declare the case “moot,” according to a recent report by The Irish Times.)

Similarly, EU law must currently respect U.S. privacy safeguards when seeking to access content stored by companies in the United States. Both initiatives are willing to jettison the principle of territoriality and the foreign privacy safeguards that accompany it: the U.S. CLOUD Act allows U.S. law enforcement to ignore EU privacy protections, while the EU proposals, if passed, ignore U.S. privacy protections regarding access to content stored in the United States. However, neither would be pleased with the reciprocal impact of a world without territorial privacy.

Indeed, Commissioner Jourova has already decried deficiencies in the United States’ approach, stating on Twitter that she wants to see “the EU and the U.S. have compatible rules for obtaining evidence stored on servers located in another country, in order to solve serious crimes. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has adopted the CLOUD Act in a fast-track procedure.”

It remains to be seen whether EU and U.S. based lawmakers or courts will accept the European Commission’s attempts to bypass EU and U.S. privacy safeguards. Our friends from European Digital Rights (EDRi) have warned against such proposals in the EU.

EDRI’s Senior Policy Advisor, Maryant Fernández, told EFF:

"If the Commission does not change its mind prior to publication of its proposals on April 17, it would be proposing dangerous short cuts to access people's data directly from companies, turning companies into judicial authorities."

 The irony is that such unilateral moves to ignore foreign privacy standards are hardly necessary. While practical challenges currently exist in cross-border access to data, these challenges relate primarily to a lack of efficiency and clarity in the prevailing MLAT regime. This deficiency can be easily addressed through: 

  • The express codification of a dual privacy regime that meets the standards of both the requesting and the host state. Dual data privacy protection will help ensure that as nations seek to harmonize their respective privacy standards, they do so on the basis of the highest privacy standards. Absent a dual privacy protection rule, nations may be tempted to harmonize at the lowest common denominator, and
  • Improved training for law enforcement to draft requests that meet such standards, and other practical measures.

 Now is the time for improving MLATs. The EU must ensure a level of predictability, accountability and procedural safeguards that is at least equal to the level that currently exists. Moreover, the EU does not have to follow the U.S. down the same path of privacy abandonment. Instead, EU institutions and Member States have the opportunity to champion logical solutions that help law enforcement access digital evidence while still protecting privacy and maintaining respect for the sovereignty of other nations. Until we know more, we must wait. But know that, as soon as these proposals produce their first public agreements, EFF will learn, evaluate, and potentially fight for better privacy rights in Europe, and around the world.

[1]   U.S. extraterritorial warrants could apply to foreign companies--the U.S. just has to find a sufficient jurisdictional nexus to send an order. So Telegram, even though German, serves customers in the U.S. and can be subject to an order.

Categories: Privacy

To #DeleteFacebook or Not to #DeleteFacebook? That Is Not the Question

Deep Links - Fri, 04/06/2018 - 12:58

Since the Cambridge Analytica news hit headlines, calls for users to ditch the platform have picked up speed. Whether or not it has a critical impact on the company’s user base or bottom line, the message from #DeleteFacebook is clear: users are fed up.

EFF is not here to tell you whether or not to delete Facebook or any other platform. We are here to hold Facebook accountable no matter who’s using it, and to push it and other tech companies to do better for users.

Users should have better options when they decide where to spend their time and attention online.

The problems that Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal highlight—sweeping data collection, indiscriminate sharing of that data, and manipulative advertising—are also problems with much of the surveillance-based, advertising-powered popular web. And there are no shortcuts to solving those problems.

Users should have better options when they decide where to spend their time and attention online. So rather than asking if people should delete Facebook, we are asking: What privacy protections should users have a right to expect, whether they decide to leave or use a platform like Facebook?

If it makes sense for you to delete Facebook or any other account, then you should have full control over deleting your data from the platform and bringing it with you to another. If you stay on Facebook, then you should be able to expect it to respect your privacy rights.

To Leave

As a social media user, you should have the right to leave a platform that you are not satisfied with. That means you should have the right to delete your information and your entire account. And we mean really delete: not just disabling access, but permanently eliminating your information and account from the service’s servers.

Furthermore, if users decide to leave a platform, they should be able to easily, efficiently, and freely take their uploaded information away and move it to a different one in a usable format. This concept, known as "data portability" or "data liberation," is fundamental to promote competition and ensure that users maintain control over their information even if they sever their relationship with a particular service.

Of course, for this right to be effective, it must be coupled with informed consent and user control, so unscrupulous companies can’t exploit data portability to mislead you and then grab your data for unsavory purposes.

Not To Leave

Deleting Facebook is not a choice that most of its 2 billion users can feasibly make. It’s also not a choice that everyone wants to make, and that’s okay too. Everyone deserves privacy, whether they delete Facebook or stay on it (or never used it in the first place!).

Deleting Facebook is not a choice that most of its users can feasibly make.

For many, the platform is the only way to stay in touch with friends, family, and businesses. It’s sometimes the only way to do business, reach out to customers, and practice a profession that requires access to a large online audience. Facebook also hosts countless communities and interest groups that are simply not available in many users’ cities and areas. Without viable general alternatives, Facebook’s massive user base and associated network effects mean that the costs of leaving it may not outweigh the benefits.

In addition to the right to leave described above, any responsible social media company should ensure users’ privacy rights: the right to informed decision-making, the right to control one’s information, the right to notice, and the right of redress.

Facebook and other companies must respect user privacy by default and by design. If you want to use a platform or service that you enjoy and that adds value to your life, you shouldn't have to leave your privacy rights at the door.

Categories: Privacy

Top Posts for Privacy

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sun, 04/28/2013 - 08:10
The top weekly posts for Privacy
Categories: Privacy


Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sat, 04/27/2013 - 14:59
Security: ; Security; Video: CCTV TRANING ACCESS CONTROL TRANING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. By Mcgready from Bel Air, Maryland "cctv video" Learn CCTV, Fire Alarm, Access Control, 100% Practical Traning Great Demand in Europe, Gulf and Asia Learn to design High Rise Projects contact: 800 800 4600.[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: CCTV Shows Shop Owner Fighting Off Gunman FULL VIDEO

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Fri, 04/26/2013 - 15:03
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: CCTV Shows Shop Owner Fighting Off Gunman FULL VIDEO . By Mcgready from Bel Air, Maryland "cctv video" The 62-year-old swings a baseball bat at the armed robber, who fires at least ten times during the raid on the Chicago store.A Chicago shop owner has fought ....[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

Surveillance Video: HOW the BOSTON BOMBER was ARRESTED: the video showing TSARNAEV S HIDEOUT

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Thu, 04/25/2013 - 15:31
Surveillance: ; Surveillance; Video: HOW the BOSTON BOMBER was ARRESTED: the video showing TSARNAEV'S HIDEOUT. By Camelia from Fair Lawn, New Jersey "Massachusetts police car" HOW the BOSTON BOMBER was CAUGHT This IR Helicopter showing TSARNAEV'S HIDEOUT Boston bomber arrested: how David Henneberry found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in his g....[1] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: Ring Swallowed By Robber Is Recovered

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Mon, 04/22/2013 - 07:07
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: Ring 'Swallowed' By Robber Is Recovered. By Mcgready from Bel Air, Maryland "New Hampshire tour" Ring 'Swallowed' By Robber Is Recovered Police say Ronald Perley grabbed a diamond ring and then swallowed it during a bungled robbery in New Hampshire.[1] Poli....[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

Privacy Video:

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sun, 04/21/2013 - 07:58
Privacy: ; Privacy; Video: . By Simon 1 from Bessie, Oklahoma "craft project" Posted on Hobby Lobby's front window, the sign informs customers that at any point during your visit, it could be open season on you, your belongings or even....[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: CCTV: Robbers smash man around head,steal his van and leave him for dead[

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:33
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: CCTV: Robbers smash man around head,steal his van and leave him for dead[. By Mcgready from Bel Air, Maryland "cctv video" Pictured: Moment robbers smashed businessman around head with a crowbar before stealing his van and leaving him for dead Ali Jawaid died after being ambushed....[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Surveillance Video: Art Attack - Secret security camera

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Thu, 04/18/2013 - 08:13
CCTV Surveillance: ; CCTV Surveillance; Video: Art Attack - Secret security camera. By Kelderman from Luck, Wisconsin "home security" Art attack with neil buchanan - learn how to make a secret security camera with a hidden stash .[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy


Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Wed, 04/17/2013 - 07:48
CCTV Surveillance: ; CCTV Surveillance; Video: NO CCTV - MY WEBCAM MY SECURITY. By Vida from Paterson, New Jersey "home security" "Watchman" software is the platform which helps you utilize your web cameras as your security tools.[1] It makes your web cameras acting like CCTV cameras and h....[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: Just footage... Real genuine Ghost on CCTV in London

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Tue, 04/16/2013 - 08:01
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: Just footage... Real genuine Ghost on CCTV in London. By Viola from Granger, Iowa "cctv video" Real genuine Ghost on CCTV in ...
Categories: Privacy

Security Video: Creating Security Threats to Consolidate Power and Profits

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Mon, 04/15/2013 - 08:16
Security: ; Security; Video: Creating Security Threats to Consolidate Power and Profits. By Carillo from Newton, Mississippi "home security" The UN Arms Trade Treatyis supposed to protect against arms flow to "rogue" nations and terrorists organizations.[1] Yet the biggest supplier to these....[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: BMW Accident video ... By Gathiya Rath CCTV ..

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sun, 04/14/2013 - 08:45
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: BMW Accident video ... By Gathiya Rath CCTV ... By Viola from Granger, Iowa "cctv video" BMW Accident video ...[1] By Gathiya Rath CCTV ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Footage Video: Live CCTV footage of Bank loot stealing in Jewelry shop

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Sat, 04/13/2013 - 08:42
CCTV Footage: ; CCTV Footage; Video: Live CCTV footage of Bank loot stealing in Jewelry shop. By Viola from Granger, Iowa "cctv video" For more News : In SBI bank of Kota four robbers looted six lakh rupees they had shot one of the security guard , in....[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy

CCTV Surveillance Video: Complete Communications and Surveillance

Full Disclosure Bulletin Board - Fri, 04/12/2013 - 07:51
CCTV Surveillance: ; CCTV Surveillance; Video: Complete Communications and Surveillance. By Margrett from Otisco, Indiana "surveillance" At Complete Communications and Surveillance, we serve the Butte a....[1] .[2] . ...
Categories: Privacy
Syndicate content