man_taking_photo

Are you ready to change the way you manage your content?

woman_with_tabletOr to put it another way, are you managing your content, or is your content managing you? We’ve all got photos, videos, and tons of other stuff in our laptops, smartphones, computers, tablets, and whatever other devices we use. Plus there’s the content we keep in Facebook, Dropbox, Skydrive, Google Drive, this drive, that drive.

Sometimes I think back to the days when it was just me, my 35mm camera, and my photo albums. Looking back, it seems so simple. Yes, I had to take my film to get developed every few months, pay for it, and yes I had to spend time putting all those photos into their plastic sleeves.

But it was linear. It was organized. In chronological order. Everything was there, in a few albums on one shelf.

And the photos got looked at! It wasn’t uncommon for me to page through an album with a friend.

Nowadays…boy. A different story. I can’t even remember all the places my fun, funny and touching memories can be found. I’ve often thought it would be nice if all my photos could just be all in one place, like they used to be on my bookshelf. So I could actually go through and look at them.

Of course, I wouldn’t go back to my 35mm film camera. My smartphone is just too handy. But I’d love to be able to see those really cute tablet pics of my son that I never get around to transferring, and the ones of him my friends have shared in Dropbox, and the random email attachments friends have sent, all together.

I’m not alone. We asked consumers in 15 countries, and 64% said it would be useful to have all their content accessible on all their devices wherever they are.

We also asked people where they upload their content most frequently. The top services were Facebook, YouTube, Google Drive, Dropbox, Microsoft SkyDrive and Apple iCloud, but of course there were a ton of others too.

Then we asked, why not make things simple by combining all these varied services, making them accessible in one central location from any device? 59% of people globally said yes, that would be a great idea.

And I say so too!

That’s why I’m excited about F-Secure’s new service, younited, which will allow you to access all your content from all your devices, and online services like Facebook and Dropbox, all in one place. All on one “bookshelf.” Life will be simple again!

The other thing I like about younited is it’s secure and private because it’s built by security professionals to whom privacy is sacrosanct. You can read more about younited and privacy here.

If you’re interested, you can be one of the first to get younited by reserving your spot at younited.com.

 

Images courtesy of “adamr” and “Vichaya Kiatying-Angsulee” / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

More posts from this topic

Lee Rigby

Whose job is it to catch terrorists, MI5’s or Facebook’s?

The sad killing of British soldier Lee Rigby has been in the headlines lately after release of a report about how authorities handled the case. Publicity was boosted because the committee thinks Facebook is responsible for the killing. They think the social media giant has a clear obligation to identify and report people who plan attacks like this. Just like the fact that phone companies report everybody who are talking about terrorism and the postal service sends a copy of all fishy letters to the Scotland Yard. I’m sure you get the sarcasm. What happened is that British agencies, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, had identified the killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, as interesting persons before the attack. They did however fail to investigate properly and apparently made no attempts to get the suspects’ communications from Facebook. There would have been several ways for them to do that, by a direct request from the police to Facebook or by the secret intelligence connections between GCHQ and NSA. Meanwhile Facebook's internal controls had flagged the killers’ communications and automatically closed their accounts. Facebook did however never report this to the British agencies. Which gave the Brits a convenient scapegoat to focus on instead of the fact that they never asked for that data. Ok, so the Brits blame Facebook. Let’s take a closer look at some numbers and what they really are demanding. There’s about 1,6 billion users total on Facebook. 1,3 billion monthly active and about 860 million daily active users. These users share around 5 billion items and send over 10 billion messages every day. This creates a total stream of around 10 million items per hour and 173 000 per second. Quite a haystack to look for terrorists in! Facebook has some 8 300 employees. If every single one of them, Mark Zuckerberg included, would spend their full working day monitoring messages and shared items, they would have to do over 60 items per second to keep up. Needless to say, any kind of monitoring must be automated for volumes like this. Facebook is monitoring its content automatically. Some keywords and phrases trigger actions, which can lead to closure of accounts. This is understandable as no company want to be a safe haven for criminals and many kinds of harmful activities are prohibited in the user agreement. But Facebook is walking a thin line here. Their primary task is not to be a law enforcement agency but to provide a social media service. They must also be well aware of the fact that reporting innocent people to the authorities is highly irresponsible. Commonly accepted practices of justice are not obeyed anymore when dealing with potential security threats and there is no transparency. There are numerous cases where western authorities have detained and even tortured innocent persons, apparently based on some very vague indications. Maher Arar’s case is a well-known example. So the bar for reporting someone must be high. It is easy for an Internet service to throw out a suspected user. They are after all not paying anything and Facebook have no obligation to let them be users. This ensures compliance with the user terms, no criminal activities allowed. But the threshold to report someone is naturally a lot higher. Especially when the volume forces Facebook to make automated decisions. This is not a sign of carelessness from Facebook’s side, it’s because people by default are entitled to communication privacy. It is also a direct consequence of the fact that terrorism suspicions are handled outside the normal justice system in many western countries. You carry a heavy responsibility if you feed innocent peoples’ data into a system like that. Let’s face it. There’s a large number of criminal conversations going on right now both on Facebook and other social services. Many terrorists are also on the phone right now and some are picking up deliveries with items related to planned attacks. Nobody is expecting the phone company to routinely listen in to identify potential terrorists and nobody is expecting the post to check parcels randomly. Facebook may not report every flagged conversation, but they are at least doing something to not be a safe haven for terrorists. Still they are the only of these services that the Brits call a safe haven. Not very logical. The simple reason for this apparent inconsistency is naturally the need for a scapegoat. The British agencies failed to investigate so they need someone else to blame. But there is a more dangerous aspect hidden here as well. Snowden made us aware of the privacy threats on Internet. The wide-spread mass surveillance has so far to a large extent been secret and even illegal. Pandora’s Box is open now and authorities all over the world are racing to get legal rights to mass surveillance, before the large masses understand what it really would mean. Putting pressure on Facebook fits that agenda perfectly. To be fair, one can naturally also ask if Facebook could have done more. A calm and balanced debate about that is welcome and beneficial. The flagged messages is probably quite a haystack too. To what extent is Facebook reviewing those messages manually, and could this process be improved to catch more potential killers? And at the same time avoid reporting any innocent users. To illustrate that this isn’t as simple as many think. People are asking why Facebook didn’t react on stuff containing the phrase “let’s kill a soldier”. Well, this blog post contains it too. Am I a killer because of that? Should this post be flagged and given to MI5?   Safe surfing, Micke    

Nov 28, 2014
BY 
Facebook_Headquarters_Entrance_Sign_Menlo_Park

Poll: What does clicking Like really mean to you?

Social media is here to stay and it definitively changes our way to communicate. One new trend is the ability to communicate instantly without writing or saying anything. Good examples are Facebook’s Like-button and the indicators for what you are doing or feeling. Facebook’s Like-button is no doubt the most popular and important feature in this category. You really can’t be a Facebook user without getting in touch with it. But the big question is what you really mean by clicking Like? It sounds simple, but may be more complex than you think. You do not only express support for the post you like, it is also a social gesture towards the poster. You show that you have read the post and want to stay in touch. Another interesting question is how to deal with good posts about bad things. We see them almost daily. Someone is writing an excellent post about something that is very wrong. You really dislike the topic of the post even if you think it’s good that someone brings it up. You agree about something you dislike. Should you click Like? Does a like target the post or the topic of a post? There’s no generic rule for this and we all act differently. More activity, likes and comments, boost a post and makes it more visible. So it would make sense to like the post as we want to spread awareness about the problem. But it still feels wrong to like something that makes you feel sick. So that’s the poll question for today. How do you act when you see a good post about something bad? Do you click Like? [polldaddy poll=8445608]   Safe surfing, Micke  

Nov 13, 2014
BY 
Federal Bureau for investigation

No, we do not need to carry black boxes

The recent statements from FBI director James Comey is yet another example of the authorities’ opportunistic approach to surveillance. He dislikes the fact that mobile operating systems from Google and Apple now come with strong encryption for data stored on the device. This security feature is naturally essential when you lose your device or if you are a potential espionage target. But the authorities do not like it as it makes investigations harder. What he said was basically that there should be a method for authorities to access data in mobile devices with a proper warrant. This would be needed to effectively fight crime. Going on to list some hated crime types, murder, child abuse, terrorism and so on. And yes, this might at first sound OK. Until you start thinking about it. Let’s translate Comey’s statement into ordinary non-obfuscated English. This is what he really said: “I, James Comey, director of FBI, want every person world-wide to carry a tracking device at all times. This device shall collect the owner’s electronic communications and be able to open cloud services where data is stored. The content of these tracking devices shall on request be made available to the US authorities. We don’t care if this weakens your security, and you shouldn’t care because our goals are more important than your privacy.” Yes, that’s what we are talking about here. The “tracking devices” are of course our mobile phones and other digital gadgets. Our digital lives are already accurate mirrors of our actual lives. Our gadgets do not only contain actual data, they are also a gate to the cloud services because they store passwords. Granting FBI access to mobile devices does not only reveal data on the device. It also opens up all the user’s cloud services, regardless of if they are within US jurisdiction or not. In short. Comey want to put a black box in the pocket of every citizen world-wide. Black boxes that record flight data and communications are justified in cockpits, not in ordinary peoples’ private lives. But wait. What if they really could solve crimes this way? Yes, there would probably be a handful of cases where data gathered this way is crucial. At least enough to make fancy PR and publically show how important it is for the authorities to have access to private data. But even proposing weakening the security of commonly and globally used operating systems is a sign of gross negligence against peoples’ right to security and privacy. The risk is magnitudes bigger than the upside. Comey was diffuse when talking about examples of cases solved using device data. But the history is full of cases solved *without* data from smart devices. Well, just a decade ago we didn’t even have this kind of tracking devices. And the police did succeed in catching murderers and other criminals despite that. You can also today select to not use a smartphone, and thus drop the FBI-tracker. That is your right and you do not break any laws by doing so. Many security-aware criminals are probably operating this way, and many more would if Comey gets what he wants. So it’s very obvious that the FBI must have capability to investigate crime even without turning every phone into a black box. Comey’s proposal is just purely opportunistic, he wants this data because it exists. Not because he really needs it.   Safe surfing, Micke    

Oct 17, 2014
BY