Why we made iWitnessed, an app to collect evidence

Why we made iWitnessed, an app to collect evidence


File 20180328 109185 18ck0l5.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

There’s been an accident – but witness accounts will stray and lose accuracy over time.
from www.shutterstock.com


Helen M. Paterson, University of Sydney

Eyewitness evidence can be critical to investigations and trials. However, research shows that eyewitness memory can be inaccurate and vulnerable to distortion depending on what happens next – for example, inaccurate information encountered through leading questions, discussion with other witnesses, or journalists.

This is particularly true when there is a long delay between witnessing an event and reporting the details to police. We forget details very rapidly, and the more we forget, the more our memories become prone to inaccuracies.

I am part of a team of eyewitness memory experts, and together we have developed the iWitnessed smartphone application. Starting today, the app is available to the general public for free download for both Apple and Android devices across Australia.

Read more:
Legal lessons for Australia from Uber’s self-driving car fatality


iWitnessed prompts the user to add a range of information.
Helen Paterson, Author provided


iWitnessed was designed upon an evidence base, to help witnesses and victims provide a detailed account of an event in a way which helps preserve and protect their memory. Such recordings can then be used in court to refresh the memory of a witness – either for one-off events (such as a car accident), or multiple, related events (such as bullying).

We believe this is the first smartphone application designed by cognitive scientists to help protect witness memory evidence.

iWitnessed helps preserve eyewitness memory as soon as possible after an event. Police officers are often very busy in the immediate aftermath of an incident, and can be unable to question witnesses until days, or weeks later.

Also, some witnesses do not come forward to police immediately after an event because they may be reluctant to report a crime. This delay can lead to forgotten and contradictory details, which can undermine the quality of the evidence when witnesses do decide to make a statement.

Helping witnesses record evidence

Memory researchers have studied the ways that a witness’ memory can be protected against forgetting and memory distortion.

One of the best ways to do this is to give witnesses an opportunity to provide a comprehensive account at the earliest possible time. We know from research that this early account is often more complete than later retellings.

More importantly, the act of recalling soon after the event helps protect the memory. That is, details recalled in this early account are less likely to be forgotten or changed by the introduction of post-event information. These beneficial effects are dependent upon the early comprehensive account being given within 24 hours of the incident.


Evidence can be collected by the voice-to-text function.
from www.shutterstock.com


Can iWitnessed evidence be used in court?

Legally speaking, evidence collected using iWitnessed will be treated like contemporaneous notes. Contemporaneous notes are witness accounts composed during or immediately after a critical event, and in court proceedings they can range from a note scribbled on the back of a napkin to a meticulous description of the event.

According to the Evidence Act 1995 NSW (sections 32 and 34), contemporaneous notes or contemporaneous recordings of events can be used to refresh the memory of a witness to an event. Even if very rudimentary, they can add to the reliability and strength of the evidence being given in court proceedings.

It is also possible that developments in evidence law may enable evidence collected using iWitnessed to become directly admissible. While there is some legislation on the admissibility of this type of evidence in court, this has not kept pace with the rapid development of modern technologies. As a result, the evidence may be used only upon strict proof in individual cases – for example, regarding the use of audio recordings.

Anyone with a device

iWitnessed is designed to be used by anyone within Australia with a smartphone or tablet, and does not require high levels of literacy or language skills. Users can type details using their keypad, and record spoken notes – standard voice-to-text functions also work in iWitnessed. Responses do not need to be in English, allowing witnesses to use their preferred language to give the most accurate and detailed account.

iWitnessed also includes contact details of support services and some general advice on responses to traumatic events.

With the app opened up, users are first given advice on how to protect their memories. Then they are asked to follow a series of prompts and enter details of the event they witnessed. As well as text and audio recordings, images can be uploaded. All entries can be time, date, and location stamped, and the history of any changes made to the entry is recorded.

Read more:
The dark side of mondegreens: how a simple mishearing can lead to wrongful conviction

Information entered via the iWitnessed app remains on the user’s phone/tablet, and can be locked with a PIN code. If witnesses choose to do so, they can send their account to police in the form of an email. All evidence stays on the device unless this step is taken, although the potential exists for this information to be subpoenaed by police.

There are many advantages of iWitnessed as highlighted above, and we believe the development of our tool is timely. Australians use advanced technologies on a daily basis, with the majority (88%) owning a smart phone). This statistic explains why more and more people are recording incidents they witness (such as racist attacks in public transport).

iWitnessed will formalise the way that this information is collected. Ultimately, we expect the information gathered by iWitnessed will facilitate police practice and investigation as well as litigation in both criminal and civil trials.

The ConversationOther experts involved in the development of iWitnessed are Celine van Golde (The University of Sydney), Richard Kemp (UNSW Sydney), Nicholas Cowdery (former Director of Public Prosecution in NSW) and NSW police officers.

Helen M. Paterson, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why prosecutions for welfare fraud have declined in Australia

Why prosecutions for welfare fraud have declined in Australia

Scarlet Wilcock, University of Wollongong

Between 2009-10 and 2016-17, the number of social security fraud prosecutions in Australia fell by 80% as a proportion of Centrelink’s customer base. This is remarkable considering national dialogue continues to focus on punitive approaches to welfare fraud. The Department of Human Services, which absorbed Centrelink in 2011, has even reiterated its “zero-tolerance” approach to the issue.

My research suggests this swift and dramatic decline in the welfare fraud prosecution rate is tied to fundamental shifts in the department’s approach to prosecutions. This has led to a less punitive culture among its Serious Non-Compliance staff.

Legal and policy changes

Several legal and policy changes have contributed to the declining prosecution rate. This includes the impact of two High Court cases – one from 2011 and another in 2013 – on so-called “omission cases”. These are cases where the allegation of fraud relates to a customer’s failure to inform the department of a change in circumstances (an omission), rather than any deliberate misrepresentation or dishonesty on the recipient’s part.

In the 2011 case, the court ruled that because there was no legal obligation for Centrelink customers to inform the department of changed circumstances, failing to fulfil this duty could not constitute fraud – or, more specifically, the offence of “obtaining financial advantage” under the Criminal Code.

The government sought to preempt this decision by swiftly passing a law creating such an obligation, making it retrospective to the year 2000. But, the retrospectivity of this law was successfully challenged in the 2013 High Court case.

These cases’ combined effect was to prevent the department from prosecuting “omission cases”, where the relevant omission had occurred prior to August 4, 2011 – the date on which the law requiring welfare recipients to inform the department of changes in their circumstances was passed.

After this date, such omissions constituted fraud and so could be prosecuted. But these two High Court decisions effectively reduced the potential pool of cases that could be prosecuted – at least in the short term.

Read more:
Australia can learn from the limitations of New Zealand’s welfare reforms

At around the same time, a new requirement was introduced making the department responsible for preparing full briefs of evidence, including witness statements, for each welfare fraud case it wished to refer for prosecution.

Previously, the department only needed to prepare a short-form brief of evidence, which amounted to little more than a statement of facts. According to the department, this change:

… impacted the (prosecution) referral numbers as significantly as the High Court decisions.

Together, these changes impacted on the number and types of cases the department could pursue. But they only tell part of the story.

I conducted in-depth research on welfare fraud, including interviews with Serious Non-Compliance staff at the department during 2014 and 2015. Other factors emerged that were far more influential in reducing welfare fraud prosecutions over the long term.

From prosecuting everything to targeting serious fraud

Until 2011, Centrelink compliance functions, including prosecutions, were subject to quantitative targets. For example, in 2000-01, Centrelink was required to refer 4,000 cases for prosecution and generate A$708.8 million in savings by recovering welfare overpayments.

To meet these organisation-wide targets, Centrelink developed targets for individual investigators. For example, in 2008-09, some investigators were required to complete 96 investigations and refer at least six cases of suspected fraud.

Read more:
Note to Centrelink: Australian workers’ lives have changed

According to compliance staff I interviewed, these requirements led to a focus on achieving targets rather than selecting the most appropriate cases for prosecution.

Janice, an investigator who had been with the department (and its predecessors) for more than 17 years, described the approach:

… we used to just prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. Quite frankly, it used to be about a number, it used to be about a benchmark.

In 2011, these targets were scrapped, reducing the pressure on staff to make up prosecution numbers. Since then, a more strategic approach to prosecutions has emerged – one focused on serious and unambiguous cases of fraud. As Henry, a member of the Serious Non-Compliance team, explained:

The directors (in the DHS) at least do know that it’s not a numbers game. It’s finding people that legitimately need to answer for their actions in front of the court rather than getting a referral to the court for the sake of achieving a number.

My research suggests this new approach has also underpinned the emergence of a less punitive culture among compliance staff, where staff consider the appropriateness and impacts of prosecution in each case.

One investigator explained the shift as:

… more about prevention and intervention than it is about the end result. We’re more conscious of what we’re doing, and the impacts as well.

Similarly, as Bruce explained:

I don’t believe in a heavy-handed approach. If someone is defrauding the Commonwealth, until we actually determine that, they’re customers. They’re not crooks … The culture has changed.

The wider reform debate

The general approach to welfare compliance in Australia continues to be punitive and underpinned by a suspicion of people who use welfare. The recent passage of a bill that will introduce a punitive demerit system for non-compliance is testament to this.

Nevertheless, the approach to social security prosecutions has undergone significant change. The removal of quantitative targets, combined with a more strategic approach to prosecutions, has contributed to a sustained reduction in the welfare fraud prosecutions rate.

Read more:
After the robo-debt debacle, here’s how Centrelink can win back Australians’ trust

The ConversationThis has occurred despite, rather than because, of changes in federal government policy. It serves as a small reminder that punitive welfare measures can be effectively contested and sensibly reformed, even as the government continues to campaign to “get tough” on welfare non-compliance.

Scarlet Wilcock, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Wollongong

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The abuse tactics fraudsters use to break the hearts and wallets of those looking online for love

The abuse tactics fraudsters use to break the hearts and wallets of those looking online for love


File 20180404 189810 d4xrt6.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

Romance fraudsters trap their victims using use similar techniques to those seen in domestic violence cases.


Cassandra Cross, Queensland University of Technology and Molly Dragiewicz, Queensland University of Technology

The techniques used by fraudsters in online romance scams are similar to those found in domestic violence cases, according to our research published in the British Journal of Criminology last month.

The finding may help to tackle the problem with more than A$4.5 million lost by Australians caught in romance and dating scams in the first two months of this year alone.

According to the latest figures from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s ScamWatch, that’s up on the same period last year.

The majority of the money lost was from reports of fraudsters using online services including social media, email and the internet.

Read more:
Why we need to do more for the victims of online fraud and scams

Despite the growing problem there is little social science research exploring romance fraud. So far, most of it has focused on the grooming techniques offenders use to lure victims into simulated relationships.

But this is only part of the story. How is it that offenders convince victims to send money?

In our latest research, we found the non-violent techniques the romance fraudsters use are similar to those encountered in domestic violence.

The victims’ stories

As part of a larger previous study, we interviewed 21 victims of romance fraud, each whom thought they had met someone special but each were ultimately defrauded of at least A$10,000. Their stories are devastating.

Listening to victims describe their interactions with fraudsters, we noticed some similarities between romance fraud and the psychological abuse used by domestic violence offenders.

Psychological abuse has long been recognised as a central part of domestic violence, along with physical and sexual violence. Despite recent attention to coercive control, we were surprised to learn how little research has been conducted on psychological abuse in the context of domestic violence.

Accordingly, we used a classification of psychologically abusive tactics constructed by psychologists in the 1990s to see if the nine major categories of abuse they identified could be applied to romance fraud.

Read more:
The victims’ verdict: what happens when they try to report online fraud

Although our interviews came from a larger study that didn’t ask directly about psychological abuse, 16 of the victims in our sample (12 women and four men) described eight of the nine types of psychological abuse. We discuss four examples here.


Isolation occurs when offenders interrupt the support networks of their victims. Romance fraud offenders were quick to move communication with victims off the dating and social media platforms and onto private email or messaging.

They spun this in a positive way, about becoming “exclusive” and “serious”.

But moving off community sites also circumvents safety mechanisms such as platforms’ prohibition of requests for money. Offenders also encouraged keeping the relationship secret.

Interview 25: She (offender) very quickly asked to move away from the site to a personal email, which looking back at what I know now, I would never do again.

Interview 15: And now I think the secrecy made it easier for him (offender) … because I was saying my kids would kill me if they knew what I was doing, and he said well you are a grown woman you don’t have to do what your kids say.


Monopolisation refers to offender efforts to consume the attention of their victims throughout the day.

Interview 12: Sometimes if I am not on the computer and I am doing other stuff, he will ask me, oh were you on Facebook? He appeared on my Facebook, he also got all my details of my Facebook. And also when I am not online sometimes he could see the little light lit up to see if I am in there, so he would ask me, you know, what are you doing online?


Degradation is behaviour that makes others feel less worthy. This includes verbal abuse such as name-calling, insults, and questioning the competency of victims.

Interview 3: He started to get quite nasty, and I thought this isn’t love. And then when I reported it, he was so, so angry…

(later in the interview) He was just abusive; it was like he was a little child and he couldn’t get the candy. Tantrums were thrown.

Interview 11: He was very pushy and even abused me on the phone a few times, very upsetting, had me terribly upset. He just kept on until I had nothing left (money) to send him.

Emotional or interpersonal withdrawal

While the above techniques are active, psychological abuse also involves passive tactics. Romance fraud offenders periodically cut off communication. This resulted in victims becoming anxious about the status of their relationship or the well-being of the offender.

Interview 6: It was just emails to start with and then she (offender) disappeared for two weeks and I did not know what was going on … then (she) came back two weeks later. So I did not know what was going on, I thought she might have been abducted or something.

Interview 24: Sometimes I wouldn’t hear from him (offender) for a week or so, then he’d be back online again. I could just never ever see him, ‘cause I used to keep questioning the trust thing. That’s when he used to throw out, ‘Don’t you trust me? We’ll have a life together’.

The impact of psychological abuse in romance fraud

These examples offer a glimpse into the dynamics of romance fraud. Despite the lack of a physical relationship, romance fraud offenders could manipulate victims by exploiting their hopes for a relationship and using psychological manipulation.

The fact that these tactics were persuasive enough to get victims to send large amounts of money to offenders illustrates how effective even non-physical forms of abuse can be.

Research on the non-physical abuse in the context of domestic violence has documented severe consequences for victims, including ongoing symptoms of trauma.

Romance fraud victims reported similar outcomes including adverse effects on their physical health, depression, breakdown of their supportive relationships, unemployment, homelessness and even contemplation of suicide.

Interview 5: I have come close to ending my life, honestly, I still feel that way.

Interview 16: I had one final conversation with her (a romance fraud perpetrator) and said ‘I am going to commit suicide’, which is how I was feeling at the time.

Moving forward

Psychological abuse is an important part of the complex dynamics of interpersonal offending. Victims of romance fraud and domestic violence are often blamed for the crimes committed against them.

Read more:
Banks can’t fight online credit card fraud alone, and neither can you

Research on psychological abuse can help us to better understand how victims become entrapped in abusive relationships over time and document the harms from non-physical forms of abuse.

This exploratory study shows how insights from research on non-physical abuse can inform romance fraud and domestic violence research in the future.

Although it has been relatively neglected by researchers compared to physical violence, we need to understand psychological manipulation in order to effectively prevent, intervene and respond to both romance fraud and domestic violence.

The ConversationIf you think you or someone you know has been scammed, please contact ScamWatch for help at www.scamwatch.gov.au or to report romance fraud please contact the Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN).

Cassandra Cross, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Queensland University of Technology and Molly Dragiewicz, Associate Professor, Queensland University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who’s to blame when driverless cars have an accident?

Who’s to blame when driverless cars have an accident?

Raja Jurdak, CSIRO and Salil S. Kanhere, UNSW

The news that an Uber self-driving vehicle has killed a pedestrian in the US has made headlines around the world.

It’s a reminder that the era of self-driving cars is fast approaching. Decades of research into advanced sensors, mapping, navigation and control methods have now come to fruition and autonomous cars are starting to hit the roads in pilot trials.

But partial or full autonomy raises the question of who is to blame in the case of an accident involving a self-driving car? In conventional (human-driven) cars, the answer is simple: the driver is responsible because they are in control. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, it isn’t so clear cut.

We propose a blockchain-based framework that uses sensor data to ascertain liability in accidents involving self-driving cars.

Read more:
We must plan the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution

The parties to an accident

Uber has suspended self-driving car tests as US authorities gather data about the circumstances surrounding the accident, which involved a car moving in autonomous mode with an operator behind the wheel.


For partially autonomous vehicles, which still involve human control, assigning liability depends on what action led to the collision and whether it was based on decisions by the driver or the vehicle. For fully autonomous vehicles, the blame can be assigned to, or shared by, one of many parties – including the manufacturer, the service centre and the vehicle owner.

Manufacturers could be liable in the case of a design fault, the software provider for buggy system software, or the service centre for inadequate service to the vehicle. On the other hand, negligence liability might fall to the owner for failing to implement a software update from the manufacturer, or with the manufacturer if the accident could have been prevented by a human driver.

In this complex web of potentially responsible parties, how can the circumstances surrounding an accident be determined?

Sensor data can inform liability decisions

Fortunately, autonomous vehicles are information-rich platforms thanks to the range of sensors on board that track, monitor and measure everything. Navigation sensors determine routes. Situational awareness sensors detect obstacles, follow lane marks and read traffic signs. And performance measurement monitors track critical functions like tyre pressure and oil levels.

Read more:
Before hitting the road, self-driving cars should have to pass a driving test

It seems an obvious solution to consider data from the vehicle sensors for liability decisions. In the event of an accident, we can readily retrieve all the sensor data to reconstruct the scene.

However, the reality is more complicated. The challenge in this new ecosystem is that some of the potentially liable parties may also have disproportionate control over the sensor data. There is a risk that one of these parties may alter the data to steer the liability decision in its favour, using the wireless and USB interfaces that current vehicles already support.

That means we must not only record tamper-free sensor data, but also any interactions with the vehicle.

A blockchain-based solution can prevent tampering

Blockchain technology can ensure there is untampered evidence of the conditions of an accident to inform decisions about liability. The solution we propose uses permissioned blockchain so that only the relevant parties can record and access information from sensors.

These parties are split into two groups.

The first group is the “operational partition”. It includes autonomous vehicles, manufacturers, software providers, service centres and insurance companies. It records and shares a ledger with all relevant sensor data from right before and after an accident among all the participants.

The blockchain framework ensures that the sensor data and records of interactions stored in the ledger cannot be changed without detection. This provides a reliable audit trail of circumstances surrounding the incident, as well as any communication between the vehicle and the participating parties immediately prior to or following the accident.

Read more:
We must plan the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution

The second group is the “decision partition”. It involves the government transport authority, legal authority and the insurance company. This group is responsible for making liability decisions based on information from the operational group.

The framework ensures individual vehicle owners remain anonymous to parties in the operational group. Only the decision partition has access to vehicle owner identities for final liability decisions. This contributes to maintaining user privacy while providing transparent and reliable liability decisions.

Sensors are everywhere

Using blockchain for trust in sensor data goes beyond driverless cars, extending to smart homes, supply chains and smart grids. In smart homes, sensor data can be stored in a secure blockchain to be used for evidence in insurance liability claims such as break-ins or fires.

Blockchain can also be used for storing auditable sensor data in supply chains so that consumers can trace the origin and condition of their products reliably. Finally, smart grids can benefit from peer-to-peer transactions in blockchain involving their smart meters for trusted and distributed energy trading.

The “internet of things” is growing exponentially, and has introduced billions of sensors into our lives, generating unprecedented volumes of data. Blockchain will deliver sensed data we can trust.

The ConversationThis technology is still under development, but with lives at stake when autonomous vehicles hit the road in increasing numbers, we must ensure that the liable party is held to account when things go wrong.

Raja Jurdak, Research Group Leader, Distributed Sensing Systems, CSIRO and Salil S. Kanhere, Associate professor, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to stop haemorrhaging data on Facebook

How to stop haemorrhaging data on Facebook


File 20180405 189801 1wbjtyg.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

Every time you open an app, click a link, like a post, read an article, hover over an ad, or connect to someone, you are generating data.


Belinda Barnet, Swinburne University of Technology

If you are one of 2.2 billion Facebook users worldwide, you have probably been alarmed by the recent coverage of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, a story that began when The Guardian revealed 50 million (now thought to be 87 million) user profiles had been retrieved and shared without the consent of users.

Though the #deletefacebook campaign has gained momentum on Twitter, it is simply not practical for most of us to delete our accounts. It is technically difficult to do, and given that one quarter of the human population is on the platform, there is an undeniable social cost for being absent.

Read more:
Why we should all cut the Facebook cord. Or should we?

It is also not possible to use or even to have a Facebook profile without giving up at least some data: every time you open the app, click a link, like a post, hover over an ad, or connect to someone, you are generating data. This particular type of data is not something you can control, because Facebook considers such data its property.

Every service has a price, and the price for being on Facebook is your data.

However, you can remain on Facebook (and other social media platforms like it) without haemorrhaging data. If you want stay in touch with those old school friends – despite the fact you will probably never see them again – here’s what you can do, step by step. The following instructions are tailored to Facebook settings on mobile.

Your location




The first place to start is with the device you are holding in your hand.
Facebook requests access to your GPS location by default, and unless you were reading the fine print when you installed the application (if you are that one person please tell me where you find the time), it will currently have access.

This means that whenever you open the app it knows where you are, and unless you have changed your location sharing setting from “Always” to “Never” or “Only while using”, it can track your location when you’re not using the app as well.

To keep your daily movements to yourself, go into Settings on Apple iPhone or Android, go to Location Services, and turn off or select “Never” for Facebook.

While you’re there, check for other social media apps with location access (like Twitter and Instagram) and consider changing them to “Never”.

Remember that pictures from your phone are GPS tagged too, so if you intend to share them on Facebook, revoke access to GPS for your camera as well.

Your content




The next thing to do is to control who can see what you post, who can see private information like your email address and phone number, and then apply these settings in retrospect to everything you’ve already posted.

Facebook has a “Privacy Shortcuts” tab under Settings, but we are going to start in Account Settings > Privacy.

You control who sees what you post, and who sees the people and pages you follow, by limiting the audience here.

Change “Who can see your future posts” and “Who can see the people and pages you follow” to “Only Friends”.

In the same menu, if you scroll down, you will see a setting called “Do you want search engines outside of Facebook to link to your profile?” Select No.

After you have made these changes, scroll down and limit the audience for past posts. Apply the new setting to all past posts, even though Facebook will try to alarm you. “The only way to undo this is to change the audience of each post one at a time! Oh my Goodness! You’ll need to change 1,700 posts over ten years.” Ignore your fears and click Limit.

Read more:
It’s time for third-party data brokers to emerge from the shadows

Next go in to Privacy Shortcuts – this is on the navigation bar below Settings. Then select Privacy Checkup. Limit who can see your personal information (date of birth, email address, phone number, place of birth if you provided it) to “Only Me”.

Third party apps




Every time you use Facebook to “login” to a service or application you are granting both Facebook and the third-party service access to your data.

Facebook has pledged to investigate and change this recently as a result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but in the meantime, it is best not to use Facebook to login to third party services. That includes Bingo Bash unfortunately.

The third screen of Privacy Checkup shows you which apps have access to your data at present. Delete any that you don’t recognise or that are unnecessary.

In the final step we will be turning off “Facebook integration” altogether. This is optional. If you choose to do this, it will revoke permission for all previous apps, plugins, and websites that have access to your data. It will also prevent your friends from harvesting your data for their apps.

In this case you don’t need to delete individual apps as they will all disappear.

Turning off Facebook integration




If you want to be as secure as it is possible to be on Facebook, you can revoke third-party access to your content completely. This means turning off all apps, plugins and websites.

If you take this step Facebook won’t be able to receive information about your use of apps outside of Facebook and apps won’t be able to receive your Facebook data.

If you’re a business this is not a good idea as you will need it to advertise and to test apps. This is for personal pages.

It may make life a little more difficult for you in that your next purchase from Farfetch will require you to set up your own account rather than just harvest your profile. Your Klout score may drop because it can’t see Facebook and that might feel terrible.

Remember this setting only applies to the data you post and provide yourself. The signals you generate using Facebook (what you like, click on, read) will still belong to Facebook and will be used to tailor advertising.

To turn off Facebook integration, go into Settings, then Apps. Select Apps, websites and games.

Read more:
We need to talk about the data we give freely of ourselves online and why it’s useful

Facebook will warn you about all the Farmville updates you will miss and how you will have a hard time logging in to The Guardian without Facebook. Ignore this and select “Turn off”.

The ConversationWell done. Your data is now as secure as it is possible to be on Facebook. Remember, though, that everything you do on the platform still generates data.

Belinda Barnet, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment