Some of us of have heard of the email tracking service ReadNotify.
Former National Party insider and ACC claimant-whistleblower-conversation recorder-lightning rod Bronwyn Pullar used it or something like it to ‘trace’ her emails to ACC (and who knows whom or where else?) and demonstrate, at least to her own satisfaction, that they’d been opened. Repeatedly.
Here’s a story from BuzzFeed about a music fan who repeatedly emailed superstar Jay Z, tracking the messages using the ReadNotify ‘bug’ system. He never received a real reply, and wanted to publish a book of his ‘sent messages’ to Jay Z … read it yourself.
I found the tale interesting but vaguely unsatisfying.
How would you know if YOUR email communication from someone you’d never met was being traced in this way … along with your actual geographic movements? How would you feel?
It reminds me of the clever assassination techniques attributed to Israeli intelligence e.g. packing a duplicate cell phone with explosive, somehow slipping it to their PLO ‘target’ … then blowing his head off remotely, with a phone call.
For some, privacy can be a matter of life or death. For celebrities … well, it’s still a value, surely? Paparazzi intrude all the time, wanting snatched photos of kids etc — crossing boundaries and making money from stealing people’s privacy. The UK’s Leveson inquiry is revealing how low some in the ‘press’ will stoop in pursuit of an edge.
Tracking The Biggest Star In The World
… “[Jay] has opened every single one of my emails, even re-opening them to re-read,” says Johnson. “He has clicked on links and had emails open for as long as 20 minutes.” He knows this because he uses a tool called ReadNotify, which embeds a small, unique invisible image in every message he sends. When the message is opened, the image loads from ReadNotify’s servers, which record the time of the view, its duration and rough location. ReadNotify then gives the sender a read receipt, confirming that the message was seen. These services have been around for years, and they work — this kind of “bugging” is an old email marketing trick.
At first, Johnson didn’t give the read notifications much credence. “I told my wife, ‘This must not be his actual email — maybe it’s a secretary of some sort opening these for him,'” Johnson told me. He seemed relatively confident that this was the right address from the start— he declined to mention how he found it, only that he believes very few people have it. But then he started noticing the locations.On November 23, 2010, two days before Jay-Z was scheduled to play a show with U2 in New Zealand, one of Johnson’s emails was opened near Auckland. Another, sent while Jay-Z was vacationing in France, was opened from an iPhone in Paris. Messages were opened in Geneva, Denver, London, Manchester, Sydney, Philadelphia, and East Hampton.
I was at that U2 concert in Auckland. With my iPhone. Tracked. Just sayin’.
– P
via Dave Pell Next Draft
Creepy.
Yeah, agreed. Creepy.
Especially since, with respect to some souls working in ‘da media’ the definition of ‘celebrity’ or ‘public figure’ is such a sliding scale.
Even a tenuous association with one of these creatures (the so-called ‘celebrity’} can open a door for press trampling privacy.
As you have found out, Jacqueline, I guess.
– P
Yes well – i did a big spiel on your recent cyber stalking post (that mentioned me and how the Herald found me) – then i clicked it away because i just couldn’t be bothered.
I like David Fisher – but i still think the “Tracking the Cyber Footprint” article was full of it and just the HOS covering their tacks / a Police or Corrections Dept leak. There is no way that they could have found me by my photos that were on FB at the time. None of them indicated i lived in a cul de sac let alone which one. Considering the rabbit warren of cul de sacs that make up Pigeon Mountain – there is no way any photos of my children gardening in the back yard led them to my doorstep.
David Fisher – bless him – was full of it.
😉
“clicked it away”?
Bokay. Fair enough. Up to you, of course. (Next time email it to me, if you want. I’d read it.)
Speaking personally, I’ve formed considerable empathy for you and others who’ve had their privacy exploited on the basis of the tenuous, half-formed, self-serving ‘reasoning’ that ‘if it’s published on the web, it must be public information’.
That shadowy justification sees people working in ‘da media’ (and wannabes) trawling through people’s Facebook pages and Twitter accounts looking for stuff to use as a cudgel or to titillate their readers.
Remember our discussions about this road accident victim: http://www.thepaepae.com/a-friends-lament-facebook-to-newspaper/14305/ where you said:
I called that a slippery slope then, and still I believe people’s disclosure of personal information via social media is much-abused. (I’m not trying to get at you, BTW.)
Yes, such information may be OPEN to the public, through any series of informed or uninformed decisions and settings, but for whom is the information INTENDED?
Whistle-blowers, investigations of government or corporate or individual malfeasance are a different issue. I’m talking about what’s just normal private info.
Sometimes prurient interest is dressed up as something less offensive. A good test (as I see it) is how a publication treats the private lives of ‘celebrities’ … sometimes slicing/cutting/wounding them through heinous low-value publicity about matters of a private or domestic matter *purely* because they have a *profile*. A double standard can be an ugly thing to behold in the fourth estate.
‘News’ amounts to little more than gossip on occasions. When media organs misuse what would in normal circumstances be regarded as private information (say, a child’s medical condition, as News International did with Gordon Brown) or sensitive material about, say, someone seeking addiction treatment, it seems abusive.
It’s like elements of ‘da media’ want to punish amateur and professional attention-seekers with a nasty two-edged sword. Unwanted media attention cuts far worse than the pay-off of ‘free publicity’ it seems to me. (Even allowing for some commonly described as ‘media whores’ using manufactured ‘scandal’ to boost their ratings. You know who I mean.)
Still, that’s how it goes: a sensationalised, paparazzi-inspired press also clings to ‘freedom of speech’ and George Orwell’s defence of journalism:
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
I don’t think he had privacy-invasion in mind when he said it.
– P
The more you reveal about yourself online, the less you are hiding.
I might be a bit out of touch but I have never heard of Jay Z, recently there was a lot of media attention about a leaked sex tape and the ‘celebrity’ involved was someone called Tulisa who likewise I had never heard of,I only knew about it because often people leave tabloids around in the canteen at work, they’re often good for a laugh and the sports coverage is surprisingly good, it was pointed out that she was on the ‘X factor’, I watched that show once for about 10 minutes and what I saw didn’t warrant further viewing, do these ‘non celebrities’ actually use a kind of ‘reverse trolling’ technique?
We have a programme in UK called ‘The voice’, the judges are Tom Jones who I have heard of and who has been on the cabaret circuit since Jimi Hendrix was around, Jessie J who I googled and appears to be a nice enough person but plays the kind of bland muzak best suited for shopping centres/malls, the unlikely titled Will.I Am from some pop band I had never heard of and an annoymous Irishman from some other band I had never heard of. Nowadays ‘celebrity’ can mean you appeared on reality TV not that you have any real talent.
Last week, I told one of my neighbours aged around 25 that Jon Lord (a fantastic musician who I was lucky enough to see many times) had passed away and she had never heard of him even though he had a 50 year career in music which was still going strong and was well renowned in Rock, Classical and jazz circles, this ‘celebrity stalking’ nonsense is a sign of the times, people want to be ‘famous’ but don’t have the talent to have any longevity and it might just be a publicity stunt. I like my musicians to make good albums and my actors to make good films, simple as that. I have no time for this fake rubbish.
I’m not a fan of junk culture but I can see why it exists.
Best advice, based on experience, don’t encourage it.
I’ve just been advised by my more ‘with it’ partner than it’s pronounced JAY ZEE not J ZED and he is married to Beyonce (who even I have heard of). As for the ‘Biggest star in the World, bit, when you’ve been in the business for as long as Paul McCartney (he did write a few good tunes so we’ll forgive him the frog chorus) you might be close, not just yet Mr Zee.