His department is the former Culture, Media & Sport department and in an effort to show that he considers ‘Digital’ an important part of his role, he’s embraced the world of digital and employed a development agency to make an app. A phone app. An app you can use on your tablets. An app all about…
Introducing the new ‘Matt Hancock’ app! To quote an early adopter, Robert Hutton, “it’s like having an actual Matt Hancock in the palm of your hand!”.
Stills are from the intro video that you are greeted with after first launching the Matt Hancock app. The purported aim of the app is to engage with his local constituents in West Suffolk but, needless to say, in a matter of days, Matt Hancock has gone global. OK, global *may* be a slight exaggeration but he’s certainly gone national. Absolutely further than West Suffolk.
Although no, I’ve not personally joined the Matt Hancock revolution yet.
What’s It All About?
Well, leaving connecting with constituents to one side, it’s social media, kind of Facebook-esque (old world, not current!) and people can be social with each other.
But… rather than having Mark Zuckerberg to idolise like a god you have Matt Hancock. Matt Hancock has put himself all over the app. You can check in on what Matt Hancock is currently doing. Look at what he’s having for tea. Have a look at the latest selfie he’s taken.
But, it’s not a vanity project… honest!
Who Are The People Using It?
Good question – at the moment, journalists have jumped all over. Also, Matt Hancock seems to have a lot of ‘fans’ that have also joined up. Also, following his new found fame with the launch of the eponymous app, a whole cross section of society appear to have signed up. International take up appears low at this time, but it’s early days.
Whilst users of the worlds biggest social networking site Facebook are sometimes unofficially known as ‘Facebookers’ or ‘Zuckers’, following on in a similar fashion, users of Matt Hancock are affectionately (yet unofficially, as far as we know) known as ‘Mancocks’ or just ‘cocks’ for short (hence the 17+ app rating).
What’s Not To Like?
Well, not much I guess.
The department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which oversees the Information Commissioners Office, stresses the importance of app developers following it’s official guidance for privacy in mobile apps.
Seems developers Disciple Media may not have got the memo though.
3/ aggregating and anonymising “your data’ and providing it on an ‘anonymous’ basis to third parties 🤔 So, not only do we gave questions of fair and lawful processing under the DPA 98, but also, non-compliance with Regulation 22 of PECRs.
8/ So, while Matt Hancock is registered with the @ICOnews Disciple Media Limited is not showing a current registration. Matt Hancock and Disciple Media appear to be joint data controllers. 🤔 Oh, and the app sues analytics from mix panel – ok, more digging to do pic.twitter.com/YnLfUrMsX7
Do you use e-mail for communication between friends and family anymore? The likely answer is no, even though e-mail was once a very popular communication method that people used every day to communicate with friends and family online
Instant messaging came along.
Instant messaging has been around for a very long time. It was likely popularised by AOL’s messenger service, AIM. AIM has been around for a very long time – since 1997 and was used more in the early 2000s than now. AIM still has a good market share in the United States today, but in Europe, Windows Live Messenger has, by far, the largest market share of them all.
Instant messaging is fast.
Unlike e-mailing, instant messaging is both and instant. It’s a great way to communicate with friends because it is instant. Some folks may not even use Windows Live Messenger anymore. But it’s not because instant messaging is going away any time soon, it is rather because people use Facebook for messaging. But I don’t agree that Windows Live Messenger is going to die anytime soon, because I think for the users who use the Internet a lot during the day still use Windows Live Messenger or another instant messaging network, such as Skype, Google talk or XMPP. Never heard of XMPP? XMPP is an open-standards communications protocol – it’s the opposite of Microsoft’s Windows Live Messaging protocol which is proprietary and therefore not open-standards.
If anything, more people are using Skype for communication – so it’s a good thing for Microsoft now they have acquired Skype (and Microsoft are very serious about Skype – they have an entire Skype Division at Microsoft’s campus).
Yes, there has been a sharp rise in social networking, and it is proof to everyone that anything can become wildly successful if you have the right product or service, and Facebook is one of them. Why has Facebook become phenomenally successful? Because it is all about socialising and communication. These are things people have always done – in person, texting, what have you – so I am not surprised how much revenue Facebook is now making because their service has become incredibly successful in just the space of five years or so.
So, is e-mailing dead?
Everyone has different opinions on this and this is just my opinion. I don’t believe e-mail is dead (and there are interesting services such as Shortmail.com), but I do think the use of e-mail is simply changing to more long-term e-mail communication. For example, we all still use e-mails to get updates on orders we’ve placed for online shopping we do, or e-mail updates or newsletters from online companies, reminders of service invoices and e-mailing someone we know when they’re not online on instant messaging and so forth.
The icons used in this article are either open source or are released by their respective authors under a license that permits their use in a commercial or non-commercial environment where attribution is not required.
Article author This article was brought to you by Ben Stones, a partner of DPS Computing Limited producing regular articles for DPS Computing. I believe in providing the very best professional, unbiased and high-quality editorial content you expect as a reader of DPS Computing. I’d like to thank David for providing me the opportunity to write articles for DPS Computing. You are welcome to send your suggestions and feedback regarding my articles by e-mailing me. Original
The unmasking of a National Security Agency intelligence program, which allegedly collects and analyses data from some of the worlds biggest companies has come as a shock to some and no surprise to others.
Leaked slides from a former CIA employee appear to show reasoning for their access to several high profile companies servers and leave the reader in no doubt to the ease of access they allegedly have.
The companies implicated in the leak include Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Apple, Dropbox PalTalk and AOL.
Naturally, the companies have released statements regarding the issue. After all, to not do so could a) imply truth in the claims and/or b) be corporate suicide.
Lets take a look at what they’ve said.
Facebooks Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg had this to say:
“We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”
“Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.”
“We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
“We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program. We do not disclose user information to government agencies without a court order, subpoena or formal legal process, nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers.”
“We have not heard of PRISM. Paltalk exercises extreme care to protect and secure users’ data, only responding to court orders as required to by law. Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers.”
Included in the leak were also mentions of YouTube and Skype.
Who’s Telling The Truth?
For sure? Well we can’t tell. However, intelligent speculation would dictate that there is no smoke without fire.
The problem for the general public is that, it isn’t in any of the parties interests to be fully frank about the situation.
On the side of the US government and intelligence agencies including GCHQ admitting to this kind of indiscriminate mass collection and studying of data, no matter how noble or well meant the intentions are, would be damaging to public confidence in the US administration.
Equally, in the UK, rising public concern and tension is building up despite there only being claims that the UK had access to the US PRISM intelligence program, not that the UK government or intelligence services were directly collecting this themselves.
In addition, it would be highly damaging to any potential (or possibly continuing) support by companies of the PRISM program if there was a confirmation on behalf of the government or the security services.
Equally, for the companies – admitting this kind of definitely questionable, potentially (legally) murky situation would likely be corporate suicide. The strong denials from all of the companies allegedly involved with the PRISM program come as no surprise.
You could expect mass panic and potentially mass boycotting of services provided by a company which was allowing unrestricted and unmonitored access to all their servers data.
If a mass panic develops after such an admission, investors could lose confidence in the companies and pull all their funding and advertisers may also flee if the user base of servers dwindles and to avoid negative press by association.
Despite all of the companies shown in the leaked slides being multi billion pound companies, the scale of damage that could be done if there are truth in these allegations could be far reaching, long lasting and ultimately inflicting a indeterminate amount of damage.
OK, so we’ve all be guilty of it. Yes, even you! Miss Butter Wouldn’t Melt! ;).
That’s right, its been an long tradition that although we love our friends to pieces we sometimes can’t be bothered speaking to them – for one reason or another. In the good old days (OK, the 90s), this involved maybe ignoring the phone or a knock at the door.
Effective, but not specific enough to just ignore the person(s) that you are trying to avoid.
Then came the mobile phone – and with it, caller ID – what an invention. With texts and calls now having a name attached the process got much easier.
Fast forward to the noughties and we get social media. And soon after social media based chat, like Facebook Chat.
Similar to texting, you could always just ignore those who you didn’t want to talk to and they’d be non the wiser. That was until the tens – as in the 2010s.
Hide No More Ignorant Friend!
Imagine if when you ignored a phone call that your phone called the person back straight away and said, “the owner of this phone is deliberately ignoring you, please try again or never”. Wouldn’t go down to well would it now? (NB. This might not be too far off – Siri is a reality after all ;)).
Well thanks to advancements in technology, Facebook has implemented this much (?) sought after feature. No more shall the ignored be ignored without their knowledge….. well not as easily anyway.
Facebook outs you as Mr/Miss/Mr/Dr Ignorant with one word and a timestamp – ‘Seen xx:xx’ (replaces x’s with desired time).
So when a friend types a message and you look at it and close it, and you think you’ve gotten away with it, think again.
They get a nice little call back from Facebook and just above where they type there message it shows them this:
Whoopsie! You’ve been outed. So remember, if you look, and you want to preserve you friend ship and not get your ears chewed off, you better reply to that message that you just sneakily looked at and though you got away with! ;).
Of course, its ok to ‘ignore’ a message that doesn’t need a reply – just make sure you’re judgement is correct before you don’t respond to the ‘does my bum look big in this‘ question that your significant other has just typed in chat to you.
Social media is something that only the most recent generation have had to grow up with. Debuting on the Internet scene in the early noughties, social networking sites have flourished and presented a land of opportunities. However, it has equally presented an extremely dangerous system into each and everybody’s homes.
While many misguidedly feel that letting their children have a Facebook account (or similar social networking account) is just harmless fun, many parents only realise the profound negative impact it can have on their childrens when it is tragically, far too late.
As a parent, you’ve probably heard a similar warning time and time again – and I’d hazard to guess that approximately 80%, if not more, have dismissed as scaremongering or something that they don’t need to consider for their family.
The following point cannot be made forcefully enough, so if there is one thing that you take heed of today, ensure it is this:
Social Networking Can Kill Or Seriously Harm Your Child.
Now, before you brush this off as over zealous, anti social network, hyperbole lets take a look at the brutal facts of the matter.
Not only does social networking on the Internet have the potential to kill or seriously harm your child there are many documented and validated cases of where this has already happened.
Shocked to find this out? Most of you probably will be – but the unfortunate truth of the matter is that social networking is more dangerous to your child than the risk of drugs, alcohol or smoking.
Again, there are two fundamental reasons why social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter are a more apparent danger to your children than the misuse of substances:
Parents widely accept their childs usage of social networks.
Yes, while the vast majority of families would hit the roof and do all they can to prevent the use (or misuse) or drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, most parents (unwittingly) allow a major cause of death and (physical and/or mental) injury into their homes with open arms.
Parents are naive to the imminent danger social networks put their child in
Whether parents know it or not, from the second their child logs into a social network until the second their child logs out of a social network, they are playing Russian Roulette with their safety.
I can see some digital eyes rolling at this moment in time, so lets take a look at some cases.
How far back do we have to look to find social networking to have been a part of a teenagers death? Not far at all. 3 days to be precise.
Nichole Cable (15) – May 2013
Look familiar? Why shouldn’t it. Nichole Cable is a typical teenager with the rest of her life ahead of her.
That was until May 2013, when last month an older male (known to Nichole, an ex boyfriend) killed her after what was thought to be a failed kidnapping attempt by the 20 year old ex come stalker.
The MO of the perpetrator is one that is becoming all too familiar. Wanting to reconcile with Nichole, and with delusional thinking in tow, he believe that kidnapping his ex would rekindle their love affair.
It should be noted that the parents of Nichole forbade the relationship to continue prior to the murder after he was involved with a high speed police pursuit (a real winner, evidently).
The parents made the right choice and took steps to protect their child. Or so they thought.
Dube, the ex friend come stalker, took to Facebook and set up a fake profile to lure Nichole out to meet him at the end of her street – unbeknownst the extreme danger that her life was going to be put in.
Nichole was cautious, cautious enough to initially turn down requests to meet “Bryan Butterfield” (please note, many teenagers will not be this cautious). However, in the end she agreed, and unfortunately, this was one of the last decisions she made.
Protecting your child from murders is reason enough to ban them from Facebook. But even if the ultimate price is paid due to their social networking usage, many other terrible tragedies can occur.
Many in society are currently campaigning for the “naming and shaming” of pedophiles, or child sex offenders. Forget this crusade (at least for the moment), there is a far more imminent and devastating threat on your doorstep.
Facebook users are usually young in general, the biggest group undoubtedly being the (under) 18 to 25 group.
Unfettered, discreet access to children via social networks means that it is all too often inhabited by many people we wouldn’t like our children to know of, let alone interact with.
Sometimes, it can be us as parents that unwittingly set of a chain reaction of events.
April Jones (5) – September 2012
April Jones was a five year old from Wales.
The case has been well publicised in the UK and earlier this week Mark Bridger was found guilty of her murder.
During the trial it was exposed the Bridgers laptop was not only full of child pornography, featuring under age girls but that he had taken a unhealthy interest in April and her sister, downloading their pictures from Facebook, nine days before her tragic death.
Now, the murder of this innocent young girl may have taken place anyway – no one can say for sure – but the access to pictures of your children through social networking sites can mean that they insert your children into their sick fantasies and develop and unhealthy, and potential deadly, interest in your child.
I don’t think there is one parent that would, in the real world, hand over pictures of their primary school children to a pedophile. Yet, by placing pictures of your children and distributing them on a worldwide network you are potentially doing this not just once, but millions of times.
It is well known, by people in the IT and legal professions, that pedophiles and child sex offenders use the Internet to gather, distribute, share and trade pictures of children that they find online – including, with an alarmingly increasing rate, pictures found on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Murder and pedophilia are of course enough to make most parents want to deactivate their childrens Facebook immidately, possibly to even consider removing all instances of computing technology from their house completely.
Not only does social media provide a danger from outsiders, but it also, disproportionately among young people, can be used to make your child hurt themselves.
Carolina Picchio (14) – May 2013
Unfortunately, we don’t have to look far back to find the latest social networking related child suicide either. The same threedays in fact that we had to look back for a social networking related child murder.
Again, another day, another country, another typical teenager.
Along with the use of mobile phones, social networking websites (Facebook, in this case) was used to undertake a campaign of cyberbullying against a teenage girl in Italy.
After splitting up with her boyfriend, his friends thought it would be good to use an upsetting video shot at a recent party, where Carolina was looking a bit worse for wear, to bully her. This video was then widely circulated by said ex boyfriend and friends.
Along with a campaign of upsetting, abusive and disturbing messages, this all-to-familiar action of this teens social group ended up leading to hear leaping out of her families fourth storey apartment window to her death.
On the day of her death she received at least 2,600 vulgar messages via social media.
The sheer power of the danger of social networking is not just limited to children as well – it is catching more and more adults out.
She moved states to get away from her ex, but unfortunately, although this may have been enough in the 90’s to escape from an ex who won’t take no for an answer, sadly today it is not.
We can move our homes to move ourselves out of harms way, but in the Internet age this can be a faux sense of security that can lead to our downfall.
While we may move homes, we don’t usually at the same time move Facebook profiles. In fact, even if we did delete and recreate a new profile, it’s probably not that hard to track down the new profile using a small amount of time and a cursory Facebook search – anyone who knows any piece of personal information about you can use it to track you down on the information superhighway.
Her ex-husband wouldn’t have had any where near as much chance of tracking her down in the pre-Internet days. But as social networks continue to integrate more easily and readily into our daily lives than ever before, their use as a tool to stalk and track someone down have never been more real.
Fearing that her ex-husband was indeed actively using Facebook to track her movements she deleted her page completely three days before her death.
Unfortunately, by this time the damage was already done. Enough information was already revealed to an evidently violent ex.
To sum up….
I imagine most of you reading this article will have been extremely skeptical about the headline of this article. Hopefully now, I have managed to make it clear how social networking can, has been and will continue to be a major harmer of our children – it is rapidly becoming the primary one.
Even if your family is lucky enough that your child doesn’t become a victim of social media, they may indeed become the instigator of a criminal offence (unwittingly) through their use of social media.
In the case of Carolina Picchio the Italian legal system is not only considering taking action against the social network in question – but against the ‘teens’ involved in the cyber bullying – looking into charges of ‘Instigating sucide’ and ‘distributing pedopornography’ – both extremely serious crimes (as if you need me to tell you).
The only way to protect your child from the imminent danger that they are in on social networks is to forbid them to use them until they are at least in adulthood – and probably by which time they will be better equipped to deal with the dangers lurking round every corner.
Personally, I’d recommend the age of 21. Although parents may struggle to carry on the influence of their rules beyond the teenage years.
Please, please, please take one message from this article, if nothing else: