So, as you might imagine, the buzz around Carrier IQ hasn’t exactly died down over the last week or two, and indeed we have several stories for you about the current hot topic in digital privacy…

First, apparently there was some question around or assertion that Carrier IQ had provided data to the FBI at some point…well, according to the company, that’s not the case, and if the Bureau had even asked for data, Carrier IQ would “refer them to the network operators because the diagnostic data collected belongs to them and not Carrier IQ.” Furthermore, it pointed out that the information its program collects isn’t a type that would be helpful to law enforcement, as it only logs historical and not real time data … [Washington Post]

And of course, you likely remember that as has become customary, Congress (specifically, Al Franken) had requested response from Carrier IQ regarding a number of questions it had about the service related to privacy. Well, we’re not shocked to report that Franken and Co. were less than satisfied by the company’s response. In particular, Franken asserted that Carrier IQ was indeed collecting contents of peoples’ text messages (even though it claims it did not), and the contents of users smartphone “online searches”… [Bloomberg]

And while we’re mentioning Congressional questions on Carrier IQ, mobile phone provider T-Mobile and manufacturer Motorola were also responsible for providing responses to such questions, and according to T-Mobile, it started putting the software on its users phones last August, and is currently installed on about 450k Android and Blackberry devices (nine specific devices have the software installed, and all are listed at the following link)… [GigaOm]

Lastly on the Carrier IQ front – consumer privacy advocate group the Electronic Frontier Foundation has apparently (with the help of a volunteer) created a program for parsing Carrier IQ data (he also reverse engineered the software in order to do this…ninja style) called IQIQ, which basically reveals what data the software is collecting on your phone. So, naturally, EFF wants you to voluntarily install this program and send it a report of what information the software is indeed logging about you so that it can create a “comprehensive library of these Profiles, and to know which ones were pushed to which phones at what times”… [EFF Deeplinks]

Now, while we’re done with Carrier IQ for the day, we’re still not done with mobile device tracking news – apparently Amazon recently patented a system that tracks where individual users or groups have been, as well as determine where they might go next in the context of targeting them ads, coupons, etc. relevant to those places… [CBS News]

Moving on to social networking and privacy – you probably remember not long ago we highlighted how Google+ introduced a facial recognition feature for helping users tag their photos, similar to what Facebook rolled out this past summer. The only distinction between the two (at least the only one relevant for our purposes) being that the G+ version of the feature was strictly opt-in for users. And apparently this distinction means the difference between ok and not ok for German Privacy Agency, Der Hamburgishche Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit… [Investor's Business Daily]

Now, as for Facebook, you probably remember that a few months back, the Irish Data Protection Agency launched an audit of Facebook’s data collection and privacy practices, in order to determine whether the service was/is in compliance with Ireland and the EU’s data protection policies. Well, apparently the net result of that investigation is basically that Facebook’s practices are mostly cool, although the Agency did make several recommendations… [Washington Post]

Might as well start with something we highlighted pretty heavily in our last post, Carrier IQ…

First, despite what may have been reported, the program that operates in the background of your smartphone apparently is not, in fact, “logging” the content of your text messages and emails. But that doesn’t mean it’s harmless, and indeed, the software can collect some information like length and status of a text or email, or the URL of a site someone visits on his/her phone. However, according to this post, it seems the threat of collecting that information lies on the mobile providers’ side, and we should potentially be more concerned with how those parties use the information they get from the program… [Threat Post]

Of course, despite the potential innocuous-ness of the program, at least one class action suit has been filed against “Apple, AT&T, Carrier IQ, HTC, Motorola Mobility, Sprint Nextel, Samsung, and T-Mobile USA” over it, alleging that the program violates the Federal Wiretap Act, Stored Electronic Communications Act, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act…  [Mashable]

However, that’s not the only legal scrutiny Carrier IQ is currently under. Apparently, the program is being examined for its potential privacy violations by “organizations and regulators” in Europe (specifically mentioned are Germany’s Bavarian State Office for Data Protection, and an independent non-government UK entity, the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office)… [PC World]

Moving on, but still filed under the potential for people other than yourself to read your communications without your consent – apparently Georgia Tech is currently working on developing a system to do just that. Of course, that in and of itself does not indicate any ill will, but the potential to “spy” on Americans is obviously innate in it… [Discovery]

Elsewhere, apparently early last week, Congress updated a 20+ year old privacy law to allow Netflix and similar services to share their users’ viewing history, with those users consents. The update basically now allows the services to obtain their users consent to such sharing through the web, as opposed to in print, which is what it previously required (written for a particular situation in 1988 when people still rented movies from an actual brick and mortar location)… [Ars Technica]

However, one thing the bill that passed doesn’t consider is that it grants Netflix and like entities blanket license to share ALL of the movies and TV shows users watch, rather than requiring their consent for each one individually… [NY Times]

So, apparently Google recently paid for a study into different web browsers (including its own Chrome, naturally), and how secure those browsers are. The results? Allegedly, Firefox was the worst of the three browsers studied, with Chrome coming in at #1, and Internet Explorer not far behind… [Forbes]

And while we’re talking about Google and privacy – you may remember a few months back, Facebook rolled out facial recognition technology to help users tag their friends in their photos. But, as has been the Facebook way (though due to its settlement with the FTC, it won’t be like that anymore), it opted all users in, rather than requiring them to opt-in to use the feature. Google did the opposite, however, when it rolled out the same feature for Google+ users last week… [PC World]

And since we’re mentioning Facebook, it seems like the logical place to point out that according to this report, the social network has decided to pull a “major corporate reorganization,” structuring its teams “around key product areas such as privacy and communication”… [All Things D]

One more Facebook mention for you – apparently the company has declined Congress’ invitation to participate in a “Teen Privacy Briefing” happening in Washington this Wednesday, saying that the company “regularly communicates with lawmakers about these issues.” Apparently to be discussed is a piece of legislation called the “Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011,” which aims to update the Children’s Online Protection Act (of 1998)… [All Facebook]

Finally, we haven’t heard from Anonymous (/LulzSecurity) in maybe a month, but don’t interpret its lack of presence among the headlines as an indication that it has hung up its collective keyboard. In a “retrospective” video, apparently the group attempted to create the impression that it plans to continue to “police” corporations in 2012… [Mashable]

So, you probably don’t even need to be following the digital privacy debate in order to have heard about this story, but last week it was revealed that a number of mobile carriers have been using an application called Carrier IQ. The program is apparently hidden from users, but logs every keystroke on your phone as well as every incoming text message, without your permission, and then sends at least some of that data to your mobile provider, in order to help your provider to optimize its network. We have a few stories this morning regarding this beast, but the best place to start is probably this kind of overview post from Mashable… [Mashable]

But while at first blush (and much of the coverage hasn’t done a lot to help this) it may seem extremely unnecessarily intrusive, maybe in reality it’s not as “evil” as you think (just a gentle reminder – what I mostly do here is summarize the perspective of others’ articles, and these views aren’t necessarily my own). If you think about the operating system of your PC or laptop, it also knows every keystroke and all of the content you’re viewing, even if it doesn’t necessarily share all of that with a 3rd party you haven’t authorized it to share with (this type of action is also common in diagnostic/debugging programs, although most of the time you authorize or initiate those applications voluntarily)… [Mashable]

Elsewhere in Carrier IQ blowback, apparently Germany’s data regulator, the “Bavarian State Authority for Data Protection” has asked Apple to address the privacy concerns/implications raised by all of the press on the application so far… [Bloomberg]

Either way, Apple has already committed to removing Carrier IQ from all future iPhones’ software. The company said it had already started doing so starting with its OS5, but that it would also stop supporting it for current iPhones running anything less than OS5. But if you’re an iPhone owner and don’t trust/don’t want to wait for that to happen, and want to know how to block the software now, this post also has you covered… [Mashable]

And of course, just as with basically every new privacy outrage, Congress has asked Carrier IQ to address “a number” of concerns over certain data collected by the program that may not necessarily be relevant to helping mobile carriers improve their networks’ performances, and to do so by next Wednesday… [Senator Al Franken via Boy Genius Report, and Gizmodo]

In other news regarding Congress and digital privacy, even though Amazon (and several interested consumer advocate groups) addressed the general privacy concerns/implications around its Kindle Fire web browser (called “Silk”), our old friend Congressman (and privacy maven) Ed Markey is still concerned. Less than satisfied with the answers Amazon gave, Markey said, “Amazon’s responses to my inquiries do not provide enough detail about how the company intends to use customer information, beyond acknowledging that the company uses this valuable information” [Representative Markey via PC World]

You may remember that the FTC and Facebook recently announced that they had reached a settlement in the Commission’s investigation of how Facebook handles user privacy. Well, while that’s certainly a step in the right direction, in that it subjects Facebook to FTC oversight for (at least) the next 20 years, and for all future updates with privacy implications to be opt-in for users, it was otherwise pretty late to the party (in the sense that there have been numerous changes affecting privacy over the last few years that basically go unaddressed and unpunished)… [TechCrunch]

And finally, piggybacking on the concept of FTC regulation – here’s a discussion of five ways we have currently tried to control/protect privacy for users on the web and on mobile, and the good and bad aspects of each… [paidcontent.org]

So, we’ve got several pieces of news regarding Facebook this morning, but undoubtedly the biggest is that it has settled with the FTC over charges that it basically did what everyone thinks it has done – “allowing potentially sensitive details to be passed along to advertisers and software developers prowling for customers” without their explicit consent (among other things). Pursuant to the settlement, Facebook agreed to submit to FTC investigation every year for the next 20 years, as well as changing its service so that users must explicitly opt-in to any changes that effect their privacy in the future… [MSNBC]

And just in case you’re interested, here’s Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s blog post highlighting the agreement with the FTC and the related changes for Facebook users… [Facebook]

And if you’re also interested in what the FTC itself had to say, here’s its announcement of the agreement… [FTC]

Next, as you probably already know, if you’ve been following along at home, the European Commission, specifically the Commission’s VP, Viviane Redding, has been hot on Facebook’s tail for a while now. And the other day, apparently Redding/the Commission said that Facebook isn’t doing enough to protect users identities from advertisers (here’s the actual article in which they said it), although as this post points out, it doesn’t seem like they fully grasp how Facebook’s advertising (which doesn’t reveal users identities) works… [TechCrunch]

Nevertheless, (if you don’t feel like reading the actual article linked to in the description above) it appears the EU is actually set to impose a regulation on Facebook that will require it to reveal to users what data it is collecting on them and how Facebook is using it (I would hope the focus is more on the latter since any Facebook user should know what info he/she is volunteering about himself/herself)… [Mashable]

And the last link on the subject – apparently Redding also said (regarding the need for EU-wide regulatory authority on privacy) that “the authorities responsible for data protection must be provided with sufficient powers to enforce the law and they must have sufficient resources to exercise their powers”… [Bloomberg]

Now, for something that isn’t about Facebook, Europe, or some combination thereof – apparently the security company TRUSTe recently did a survey of digital privacy policies and revealed several interesting details. First, apparently only 2% of privacy policies are “optimized” for mobile (ie, they address the privacy implications of mobile data vs. just web data). But also, only 7% “explain how long they store your data for,” and only 32% tell you how to permanently delete your account and the corresponding data… [TechCrunch]

Finally, as you may know, the “online advertising industry” recently announced a “plan” or at least an idea regarding how to give people the power to control what information advertisers can gather on them, as well as how they might use that information, which is basically a site that shows the user all of the different advertisers/networks that are collecting data on them, and gives them options to control what those advertisers/networks can/can’t use to target relevant ads to them. However, as this article notes, this proposal may not be ideal in that the way users “opt out” is by having a cookie installed in their browser that indicates they have opted out, but this cookie gets deleted every time a user clears his/her browser’s cache. Also, it doesn’t stop the data collection itself, and most people may not even know they have the power to control what info advertisers collect on them, let alone actually take steps to do so. But perhaps more importantly, it “does not address more fundamental issues such as who owns data…or how I can even find out this information in the first place,” and also neglects to address how long advetisers might retain user data or impose any restrictions on the resale of data to other 3rd parties. Plus, it’s only voluntary for advertisers… [paidcontent.org]

Since we can’t really go a post without mentioning Facebook around here, might as well start there – as you may or may not have heard by now, at the end of last week, Facebook actually opened up to USA Today about how it “tracks” users across the web (you probably remember that recently it has been accused of doing so even if they’re not logged in), and how it uses the data it collects to “help improve security and its plugins”… [USA Today via Mashable]

Well, if “the Feds” thought the legislation that would allow them to obtain peoples’ cell phone records without a warrant was going to sneak by, apparently they would be wrong – as it only took a district court judge but one page to strike down the law as unconstitutional… [WSJ via Gizmodo]

While we haven’t spent much time talking about it here, one of the bigger digital privacy debates is whether or not to institute electronic health records. To that end, Pew Research Center apparently recently revealed survey results indicating that a majority of people would be open to the idea if it meant better “coordination of their care,” or helped “support real-time decisions in their care”…among other things… [InformationWeek]

But one thing we spend a good deal of time talking about is the privacy around digital advertising and how regulating it may or may not shake out. Well, if it helps at all, apparently the FTC’s former Chief Privacy Officer, Marc Groman, is leaving the Commission to become the Network Advertising Intiative’s – a group “promoting self-regulation in online advertising” – new Executive Director (and General Counsel)… [NY Times]

Perhaps you remember last year’s Google Street View wi-fi sniffing fiasco, wherein everyone was up in arms at the search giant for identifying and cataloging peoples’ wi-fi networks. Well, not totally related, but at least somewhat – apparently under increasing pressure, Google recently decided to allow users all around the world to keep the names and locations of their wi-fi routers out of its database… [NY Times]

And while we’re catching up on the usual suspects – Facebook apparently despite allegedly focusing on giving users more/better privacy controls, and being investigated by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, is “holding back” more user data (from users) than before it came under the aforementioned authority’s scrutiny… [IT World]

Elsewhere in general web privacy, earlier this week, the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) – the pseudo-governing body of teh interwebz – announced its latest privacy standards recommendations regarding “do not track.” And according to this post, it seems like they’re on the right track, but may be missing the mark in that they put too much responsibility on users who may or may not really fully understand their privacy on the web… [The Next Web]

Finally, a couple of notes on mobile privacy…

First, according to a recent survey conducted by London-based mobile security firm AdaptiveMobile, despite the fact that most consumers report being concerned about mobile privacy (and wanting more protective mobile privacy options), 75% of them don’t currently take any steps to ensure their mobile privacy. Among other stats, iPhone users apparently to be the most ignorant of their mobile privacy, with almost 70% unaware of the information the free apps they’ve downloaded can access… [PC World]

But mobile privacy isn’t just on consumers minds, apparently US regulators are now inquiring with the major mobile smartphone providers (or at least Microsoft, anyway) about what/how much they do to police what information the apps users on their smartphone platforms can access. Obviously the implication is that mobile privacy will likely start to emerge as another governmental concern, along with the as of yet unresolved web privacy issues… [PC World]

We feel like we’ve been following this saga for a while now, but it may not actually be as long as we’re thinking. Either way, apparently the Supreme Court began hearing one of the cases that has been circulating in the country regarding GPS tracking and whether or not law enforcement should be able to install GPS tracking devices on suspects’ cars without needing a warrant. It sounds like the initial reaction from the Court was that there absolutely should be a warrant issued before doing so, but a definitive answer is obviously still yet to come… [Washington Post]

However, an answer has come down in one of this country’s district courts, indicating that if federal agents want access to users’ Twitter data, they can get it without a warrant. The case involved three Wikileaks “associates,” and the presiding Judge stated that “voluntarily chose to use Internet technology to communicate with Twitter and thereby consented to whatever disclosures would be necessary to complete their communications”… [WSJ]

Back to privacy on the web, apparently the FTC has been working with the advertising industry on expanding the program the latter implemented last year to educate consumers on what data it might be collecting on them as well as how they can opt out of such collection. Pointing out that there were other forms of “tracking” beyond just serving ads based on users’ browsing habits, the Commission urged the industry to expand the initiative to other forms of tracking (like “collecting data on consumers’ Internet browsing to determine eligibility for employment, credit, medical treatment or insurance”), which apparently it did in response (although this expansion won’t take effect until 2012)… [BusinessWeek]

Elsewhere, apparently earlier this week, Facebook founder/CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that despite all of the criticism and scrutiny his social network has received regarding its privacy practices, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are violating users’ privacy far more egregiously than Facebook, pointing out (or asserting, anyway) that Facebook only “tracks” data you volunteer to it, while Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s search engines and ad networks are indeed collecting info on you “behind your back” (ie, without you necessarily volunteering that info overtly)… [Huffington Post]

But despite what he might be saying, that doesn’t change the fact that apparently Facebook has been negotiating with the FTC over said privacy controls. Apparently once a settlement is reached, Facebook may have to make all future changes effecting privacy “opt-in,” as opposed to its current practice of opting users in by default… [Ars Technica]

Somewhat related, or at least tangentially related, apparently the EU’s Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has said that she is planning to insert language into the EU’s controlling data privacy law making it so that even non-EU companies must comply with the law’s data collection regulations, which as this story points out, will pretty much necessitate a conflict between our country and the one across the pond… [NY Times]

In case you were wondering whether Boomers or Millenials are more concerned with their own privacy and security on the web, apparently both groups are about equally concerned. According to a recent study, 77% of the former and 69% of the latter are “concerned about their information’s misuse online,” and 81% of Boomers as well as 66% of Millenials do not feel “very secure” when buying things on the web… [Mashable]

Finally, Anonymous’ crusade marches on…apparently one of the group’s latest target was a Finnish neo-nazi website, which it hacked in order to collect the names of those found in the site’s membership application database. But apparently that wasn’t the only Finnish site the Anonymous collective hacked, and indeed it apparently did so for sites unrelated to neo-nazism to show the relative security of Finnish peoples’ data online, which it claimed (and more or less proved) was lax… [Telegraph]

Cool new privacy control from Flickr – you may already know that depending on your phone’s settings, when you take a picture with your phone’s camera, it may actually contain metadata showing exactly where the photo was taken. So, if you take a picture of something while you’re at home and share it on the web (through Twitter or Facebook, for example), you could be exposing your address to all sorts of people. But, Flickr is now allowing users to set up “geofences” around different locations, so that basically, if I set up a geofence around my home, I can then set who of my friends can see that I uploaded a picture from that location… [Mashable]

And now, we get to the obligatory Google portion of our show…first item of Google news – apparently now, if you’re wondering why Google is serving you a specific ad in search results or Gmail, with a click of the new “Why This Ad” button you’re able to find out, and should you want to block a certain company’s ads, you can do that using the “Why These Ads” button… [Google via Gizmodo]

Also filed under Google today – “Google’s Business Model Is In Conflict With Your Privacy”… [Business Insider]

A recent Carnegie Mellon study of privacy tools on the web (for example, AdBlock Plus or the built in features in IE 9 and Firefox 5) “revealed” that those tools are plagued with usability issues that actually in many circumstances make a privacy situation worse for consumers, including random default settings not necessarily geared to the typical web user, and the fact that most of the instructions on how to use the tools aren’t exactly the easiest things to read and understand… [WSJ]

So, you may have heard that Facebook rolled out a security feature that allows your friends to help you gain control of your profile back should it be “hacked” and hijacked by someone else. Well, it turns out that actually may be a bigger problem than anyone might have thought, as Facebook revealed the stat that about 600,000 accounts are “compromised” every day… [Mashable]

But perhaps even bigger Facebook news is that Germany’s Hamburg Data Protection Agency recently indicated (yesterday) that it seems Facebook is indeed creating user tracking profiles for users, even those who have cancelled their accounts (for two years after, apparently), which was a problem recently intimated by an Austrian law student, and that is currently also being investigated… [NY Times]

So, some quick Anonymous news for you – apparently in addition to its proposed takedown of Facebook, scheduled for Saturday, Anonymous had also said it would attempt to take on the Zetas drug cartel on that day after the cartel had kidnapped one of its members, threatening to reveal the names of “the names, addresses and photos of taxi drivers, journalists and police officers on the payroll of the criminal gang”… [Gizmodo]

But then, it retracted that threat, claiming basically that it didn’t want anyone to die, mainly those people whose names it was threatening to reveal, without any objective corroboration of their involvement with the Zetas… [TalkingPointsMemo]

Finally, you may remember all that we’ve written about Verizon Wireless’ recent move to access more of its customers data, including location data as well as browsing data. Well, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (a consumer privacy advocacy group) has apparently publicly challenged the move, decrying Verizon amassing a vast customer base on long term contracts, and then all of a sudden changing its “data use and disclosure practices.” Of course, for its part, Verizon responds that none of the data it might share with others about its customers would be personally identifiable, and customers can opt out if they don’t want their data disclosed at all… [Online Media Daily]

Probably the most interesting news item we’ve got for you today – apparently over the first six months of 2011, US government requests for Google user data (to be used in criminal investigations) have increased just under 30% over a similar time period in 2010. In its Transparency Report, the company said it has complied with about 93% of said requests, and said it has also had requests to remove about 757 pieces of content, about 63% of which it has granted. Just some interesting tidbits, but definitely hit the link for the full story… [Wired]

Elsewhere in Google and privacy – apparently the company agreed to a settlement with the FTC earlier this week on the whole Google Buzz privacy fiasco of 2010. According to the settlement, Google is barred from making “future privacy misrepresentations,” and also “requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years”… [FTC]

Perhaps your business uses Google Apps for email, or project documentation, or any number of things. Well, if that’s the case, and you set up a Google + profile for yourself using your business Google account, just be aware that whoever serves as Administrator of your businesses Google Apps can access your G+ data, modify your account, and/or your postings… [TheNextWeb]

And last piece of Google privacy news today, but apparently when the company recently rolled out its Real Time Analytics Beta to the latest round of testers, it put all 500(ish)+ email addresses in the To: line of the notifying email, rather than the BCC: line, thus exposing each address to the entire list. Not exactly the most public disclosure, but we see the implications nevertheless… [TechCrunch]

So, privacy implications aside, we don’t necessarily think this is altogether the worst way to target ads to people on the web, but apparently Visa and Mastercard are considering leveraging customer purchase history, alongside web browsing data in order to better target ads to consumers on the internet…which, of course, has caught Cognress’ eye, and indeed Senator Jay Rockefeller has sent the two companies a letter inquiring about said plans… [Mediapost]

Head’s up – in case you forgot, the date Anonymous had set forth as the day it would take down Facebook happens to be next Saturday, November 5, at which time it apparently has also planned to attack Fox News as well as publicly protest banks…which of course is right around the corner. So, those things may or may not happen, and we shall see… [Daily Dot]

But those aren’t the only targets of Anonymous’ ire lately – apparently the “hacktivist” group also issued a warning to web hosting service Freedom Hosting (and the internet porn community at large), which it claims hosts a number of child pornography sites. Anonymous demanded the host (and others) remove any/all child pornography from its servers or else… [Mashable]

And since we just mentioned Facebook – just an update on something we called out last week(ish) – as you may remember, The Social Network is now being investigated in Ireland (where all non North American accounts are apparently handled) for potential privacy violations related to the practice of archiving its users activities, and even those of non-users. Well, the update is that an audit is now under way, and the Irish officials on the case will be evaluating the findings to see whether Facebook violated any of Ireland’s Data Protection and Privacy regulations… [PC Mag]

Finally, if you’ve been with us since those primitive times of 2010, you’ll remember the Firefox plugin called Firesheep that allowed users to basically hijack other users social networking profiles if both users were connected to the same open wifi network. Well, perhaps the best way to protect yourself against something like that compromising your own profile is to understand how it might be accomplished, and correct accordingly…and if you want to know how to do that, this post has you covered… [Gizmodo]

So, if you’ve been following along at home, you may have noticed that as time has advanced, more and more of the stories we’ve noted have been about mobile privacy. Well, the 25 year old legislation that governs electronic privacy in general undoubtedly doesn’t well cover the privacy issues baked into mobile devices and technology. And so, a couple of Senators recently introduced the “Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act” (text here), which if enacted would govern what information mobile technology providers and developers could access and how they might be able (or not, as the case may be) to use it… [Examiner.com]

And while we’re mentioning updates on old legislation, this isn’t one, but it does involve an older piece of legislation that is making its impression felt today – you may remember a while back we mentioned Netflix getting sued by a group of consumers for collecting information on their video consumption histories, even after customers had canceled their accounts. Netflix is apparently looking to defend itself by arguing that the legislation deprives it of due process, and that it also exposes the company to excessive fines (the legislation prescribes a $2500 fine per violation)… [Mediapost]

If we had a dollar for every time we mentioned Facebook on this blog, well, we’d be rich enough to not be writing this blog. The latest privacy complaint(s) leveled against The (not a typo) social network involve Facebook Ireland, which apparently handles all Facebook accounts from users outside of the US and Canada. Apparently an Austrian law student recently requested his data from Facebook and received 12 CDs full of information on his activity on the service, including even a history of his “pokes” from the past three years or so, bringing to light a practice of the service creating “shadow profiles” of both users and even non-users alike… [Red Orbit]

Elsewhere in Facebook and privacy, however, Facebook’s CTO Bret Taylor recently noted that unlike points in its past history, now given the expanded set of options, most Facebook users have modified their privacy settings in some way or another… [ZD Net]

You probably remember we’ve highlighted the privacy implications of Amazon’s Silk browser a good amount recently, which comes installed on its Kindle Fire tablet. Well, while different parties have had their say about the relative privacy threat the browser poses, here’s Amazon’s official statement on the subject… [Gizmodo]

Not sure how many of you are interested in privacy at the SEC, or how many of you thought you’d ever even read those words in digital print, but apparently the Commission hired an outside agency a while back to monitor employees financial transactions, which has now in turn hired a subcontractor and another outside party, both of whom have access to the same information on SEC employees…without its permission…thus potentially exposing employee information to these third parties for an undefined period of time… [NY Times]

And finally, the results of a recent survey reveal 1) that 95% of respondents indicated that they take some precaution to safeguard their privacy electronically, and 2) that 56% of respondents were “aware that being on Facebook means compromising their privacy,” and 3) that 66% of respondents “indicated concern over websites and search engines collecting information as they surf the Internet,” among other data points… [Press Release]