Group items tagged

"There's a known weakness in browsers which we wrote about in the book. Every time we talked with someone about it, they'd ask us why we didn't start a company that took advantage of the loophole, and the answer was, well, it's creepy. The loophole basically lets you see where else your visitors have been on the Internet. Well, it's now out in the open, in two forms: Beencounter, and Haveyourfriendsbeenthere. To be perfectly clear, the site won't show you everything your visitors surf-just whether or not they've been to a set of sites you define. Here's how it works:"

The sheer volume of amateur cellphone sex videos on the Internet's porn site - while certainly culturally edifying - illustrates the new truth about sex in the 21st century: don't let anyone record it, or everyone will be enjoying it. But sometimes, the all-seeing and voyeuristic eye of consumer video culture has a happy ending: a businessman who recorded himself having sex with a university student was recently cleared of the charges after the footage was shown in court. Before the footage was presented as evidence, the judge warned both the gallery and the jury: "You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful." Despite this warning, though, the defense failed to exhibit a scene from Dustin Diamond's sex tape, but instead a rather traditional recording of an enthusiastic coupling. After the tape had finished playing, the judge ruled in the favor of the defendant. "You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence." There's the possibility, of course, that the judge made the wrong decision: there could have been drugs involved. But score one for the good guys. A lot is made, rightfully, of the eradication of privacy in the digital age, but when it can help a man avoid wrongful imprisonment and the total ruin of his life, there's a bright side. The moral? If you're actively swinging, pony up for a cell phone with a good camera. And PornHub commenters say, the more megapixels, the better.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a clear victory for free speech," having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website's freedom of speech. I've always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children's online activity. There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat's K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it's in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online. COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all. (COPA was killed, not COPPA - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act)

What constitutes unfair -- unethical -- aggregation? In the absence of a clear legal framework (the "fair use" doctrine in the U.S. is notoriously mushy), a lot of media people tend to use the "I know it when I see it" standard, echoing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's wry 1964 declaration about what constitutes hard-core porn.

Links to information about the companies that are watching what you click and browse.

Who's watching while you visit that job hunting, porn or shopping site?