Group items tagged

For years, Attorneys General Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have been leading a coalition of 49 states that were pushing MySpace to add technology to verify the age of its members. The attorneys general argue that age verification will help keep younger children off the site, and therefore prevent them from being contacted by sexual predators and other unsavory characters. Tomorrow, however, leading researchers in online child safety are expected to submit a report to the attorneys general stating that age verification technology is flawed and will not protect children from online dangers. Excerpts of separate interviews with Attorney Generals Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who led the charge for social networking safety standards.

How will Barack Obama's administration affect IT spending in the trenches, where technology decision makers are dealing with strapped budgets and a shaky economy? President Barack Obama's official campaign Web site is a model of how 21st century technology tools can boost a candidate's popularity, building significant buzz via blogs, IM applications and e-merchandising. And Obama's campaign wasn't confined to his own site either, because he chose to expand his presence on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Eons and BlackPlanet. His images and words also constantly popped up at outlets such as Flickr, Digg and YouTube. All these efforts made Obama an accessible, immediate and appealing figure to both younger voters and older ones who regularly connect to the Internet. Ultimately, they energized his campaign and helped secure a decisive victory for the nation's first African-American president. Certainly, Obama enters the White House with a reputation as one of the most-if not the most-tech-savvy chief executives ever. For starters, he's created the position of a federal chief technology officer to oversee the future of information technology for government agencies.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned American teenagers on Tuesday of the dangers of putting too much personal information on Internet social networking sites, saying it could come back to haunt them in later life.

The row over the changes Facebook made to its terms has thrown the light on the rights people surrender when they sign up to use a website. It is likely though that until the row over Facebook's Terms and Conditions went public, few people knew what rights sites claim over the content that their members upload and share. "Less than 25% of users are making a specific point of going to the privacy settings and making changes," said Simon Davies, head of digital rights group Privacy International. Most, he said, are so keen to get using a site after registering that they do not take time to learn what will happen to any data that they are surrendering. Only later do they go back and adjust what happens to their data. "A lot of sites do have strong privacy controls," said Mr Davies. Tweaking these settings can help cut down on how much of a person's data is distributed. "It can make a difference," said Mr Davies, "particularly if the default is set in terms of maximum information flow." Blogger Amanda French looked through the pages where sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and others spelled out their policies with regard to the data that members upload. Although the wording was different, she found that sites such as MySpace, Yahoo, Google and Twitter explicitly backed away from claiming ownership over uploaded content. A brief survey of Europe's Top 5 social sites found a similar situation. The text of the terms available on the UK sites of Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, Friends Reunited and Windows Live all back away from claiming ownership. By contrast, she wrote, the changes Facebook made to its terms were "extraordinarily grabby and arrogant".

"Google has decided to stop its Street View cars from sniffing wireless networking data after an embarrassing privacy gaffe."

Google decided to stop violating our privacy after they were caught? Now that's forward-thinking business strategy. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Some people think social media requires trust to be a sustainable model.

A quick rant from me to you, dear readers. Yesterday I received an unsolicited email from a woman who was pitching me a service - one totally irrelevant to my life. In her signature, in which she included what she considers her credentials, she had the statement, "More than 2,000 followers on Twitter." I gasped, somewhat in horror. I laughed, full of humor. Twitter is fun and a great networking tool and business opportunities can stem from Twitter. I won't reiterate all of the ways because there are tons of existing resources. Yet as big as Twitter has become it's still not massively adopted. Using such a tagline in your credentials does one of two things: 1) makes schooled Twitter users laugh and 2) makes those unfamiliar with Twitter roll their eyes. For instance, HubSpot, a really cool inbound marketing firm, runs Twitter Grader, a way that Twitter users grade the reach of their feeds and profiles based on HubSpot's super secret algorithms. It's a fun tool - but it only measures folks against about a million or so other users (I think that's because it can only grade you against other folks who have graded themselves). It's also not the end all, be all of measuring Twitter influence.

Identity theft concerns are focused on the security and necessity of the collection process. Collecting personal information just because you can is unsafe. Organizations can reduce privacy risks by not collecting unnecessary personal info. Once the data gets into the data life cycle pipeline, the cost of managing and destroying it escalates. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million people have their identities stolen every year. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 200 million instances of data breaches have occurred since the beginning of 2005, and they show no signs of letting up. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, more than 85 million incidents were reported. The causes of data breaches run the gamut: Hackers get unencrypted, transmitted data and data at rest; laptops are stolen or lost; storage Relevant Products/Services devices are lost by third-party shipping companies; flash drives or PDAs are left lying around; Social Security numbers are accidentally printed on envelopes; or data is found on discarded computers. This article examines the organizational risks to CPAs and their clients or corporate employers of improperly managed data throughout the data life cycle. It also discusses best data management practices and proper procedures for responding to a data breach. Data breaches, whatever the cause, are costly. According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, the average cost of a data breach in 2007 was $6.3 million. The average cost to an organization per record compromised is about $197, which is typically spent on phone calls for customer notification, providing free credit monitoring, discounts on membership fees, or discounts on merchandise to make up for the security Relevant Products/Services breach. Some organizations also experience an increase in customer turnover. The organization typically spends additional money in data protection Relevant Products/Services enhancements. Companies sanctioned by

Healthcare organizations are losing more than just names, addresses and Social Security numbers. When their data gets stolen, patients lose the privacy of their medical conditions, treatments and medications while at the same time falling prey to identity theft, medical billing fraud and other criminal schemes. Theft of electronic medical records is on the rise, and the implications are getting more serious. In a 2008 survey of identity theft victims, the Identity Theft Resource Center found that 67% had been charged for medical services they never received and 11% were denied health or life insurance due to unexplained reasons.

"Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and a customer-service guru, was riding on a public train in San Francisco, California, recently when something common but annoying occurred: The railcar filled with people and became uncomfortably hot. If the inconvenience had happened a few years ago, Newmark said he would have just gone on with his day -- maybe complaining about the temperature to a friend. But this was 2009, the age of mobile technology, so Newmark pulled out his iPhone, snapped a photo of the train car and, using an app called "SeeClickFix," zapped an on-the-go complaint, complete with GPS coordinates, straight to City Hall. "A week or so later I got an e-mail back saying, 'Hey, we know about the problem and we're going to be taking some measures to address it,' " he said. Welcome to a movement the tech crowd is calling "Gov 2.0" -- where mobile technology and GPS apps are helping give citizens like Newmark more of a say in how their local tax money is spent. It's public service for the digital age."

Maybe Craig of Craigslist has finally found something to do with technology besides making it easier to find a prostitute in Los Angeles?

The fuss over Facebook's attempt to modify the contract with its millions of users has died down for the moment, and I haven't noticed any of my friends closing their account or even significantly changing their behaviour in protest despite the widespread coverage. The problem started in early February when Facebook updated the section on its site which establishes the legal agreement with its users. Like most people who use it I didn't notice the change, and even though Facebook clearly knows who I am and how to contact me I didn't get a message or see a notification in my news feed about it. This is pretty common practice on the web, where long legal contracts are agreed with a click of a mouse and sites update them at will because they contain a clause saying that you accept the changes if you carry on using the site. Term paper Unlike laws passed by Parliament, which have to be properly promulgated to those affected, contracts can evidently be changed without any proper notice.

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we