Group items tagged

"Information wants to be free" (IWTBF hereafter) is half of Stewart Brand's famous aphorism, first uttered at the Hackers Conference in Marin County, California (where else?), in 1984: "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."

This blog by Dan Yoder counts 10 reasons why you should can your Facebook account. The main reasons for this boycott are related issues of privacy and how they treat the information of members, for example not providing complete information on how they use your information.

Something about Global Voices 5 years after. It is impressive the way this alternative source of information has expanded. Now, in the Internet Age, the information environment has gone suddenly from a desert to a rainforest. We have moved rapidly from a problem of scarcity to a problem of over-abundance - at least for some kinds of information. Other kinds of information remain rare and harder to find amidst the rapidly proliferating dominant species.

This is a clear example of a government trying to control the information flow with old techniques (only one CD for all journalists) and how the Internet comes into play to provide electoral information. Interesting to compare vs the 2008 US elections, where pundits and commentators could get info from various sites. Can the Internet change results?

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?

GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registration company is taking similar action to Google by deciding to not conduct further business in China. This decision is a reaction to China now demanding that applicants of domain names are to provide additional personal information, including a full colour head shot photograph. While China maintains forcing applicants to register extensive personal information will curb the creation of unsavoury sites (namely pornography) everyone else outside of the Chinese government believes such detailed personal information will equip the government to target any individual (to what extent - who knows) displaying any content that the government does not support. Is this an invasion of privacy? Should people be able to exercise multiple personas on the internet, or should you be who you are? If a government is to collect such information who will ensure the information it collects isn't abused? Do we answer these questions differently when thinking of China i.e. what would the answers be if Australia was to introduce such a law? At the very least, it's a relief to see companies realising that China is compromising the values of the internet and are reacting suitably by taking their services out of the country. More need to participate in the retalliation.

Whilst being amusing, this article also raises interesting points around what level of responsibility internet sites and information providers must take for the accuracy and quality of the information they provide.

This article refers to the internet as the "weapon of choice" for the Taliban. The reason the article gives for why the internet is deemed a weapon in this case is due to the distribution of misinformation. If this is the case the internet should deemed to be a weapon in the hands of any government in the world. Misleading information is a problem everywhere and this is why people need to be diligent when looking at information on the web.

Ideas, issues, knowledge, data - visualised. CReator David McCandless is a London-based author, writer and designer who has written for The Guardian, Wired and others. He is interested in "how designed information can help us understand the world, cut through BS and reveal the hidden connections, patterns and stories underneath. Or, failing that, it can just look cool!"

PJFenwick is doing a PhD on facebook privacy and his explorations have shown that even when you lock up your settings, your friends (and friends of) can leak your information all over the place. "But by far the most interesting part of all of this have been dark users. Like dark matter, these users are not directly observable, usually because they've completely disabled API access. In fact, some of these users are completely dark unless you're a friend. They don't show up in search results. They don't show up on friends' lists. You can't send them messages. If you try to navigate to their user page (assuming you know it exists), you get redirected back to your homepage. These users have their privacy settings turned up real high, and are supposed to be hard to find. However like dark matter, dark users are observable due to their effects on the rest of the universe. If a dark user comments on a stream entry, I can see that comment. More importantly, I can see their user-ID, and I can generate a URL to a page that will contain their name. I can then watch for their activities elsewhere. Granted, I can't directly search for their activity, but I can observe their effects on my friends. For want of a better term, I've been calling this "dark stalking". What makes this all rather chilling is that I'm doing all of this via the application API. If your friend has installed an application, then it can access quite a lot of information about you, unless you turn it off. If your friend has granted the application the read_stream privilege, then it can read your status stream. Even if a friend of a friend has done this, and you comment on your friend's status entries, it's possible to infer your existence and retrieve those discussions through dark stalking."

Wow. Read it and weep. Tim O'Reilly is promoting this article. I haven't read anything quite so scarily propagandist since Caberet. What do I mean? (and who is this 'state'?) Courtesy of One Economy Corporation "If e-mail lives in the cloud, who owns that information?" says State Department's Alec Ross. Cloud computing is a double-edged sword in the fight for Internet freedom, a top State Department official said on Wednesday." "During a major policy speech in January, Clinton announced that Internet freedom would become a strategic priority for the United States in 2010. In March, State revived the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, a Bush administration initiative that worked to harmonize policies departmentwide on protecting free speech. The renamed NetFreedom Task Force met on March 4, when 19 telecommunications and information technology companies discussed the corporate sector's role in facilitating Internet freedom."

US court rules that tracking once in public is public information but tracking over time in public is accumulating information usually unavailable to 'the public' therefore requiring a search warrant.

A great industry site with news, discussion and features about web design, web content, Information Architecture etc.

The Pew Research Center is not as unbiased a source of information as they'd like to portray but they are used as the source for much of the statistics that will get passed around. Haven't finished this paper yet but looking forward to the section on control and governance.

The Pew Research Center is not as unbiased a source of information as they'd like to portray but they are used as the source for much of the statistics that will get passed around. Haven't finished this paper yet but looking forward to the section on control and governance.

Two of the three richest men in the world derive their fortunes, in large part, from the information business: Carlos Slim (king of Mexican telecommunications) and Bill Gates (well, we all know what he does). How much power do these two hold over the architecture, policies and whereabouts of the web?  NOTE: the fact that the richest man in the world comes from a country with 80 million poor people is in itself a worthy discussion topic. 

We all know video content is one of the most popular types of content on the web, driving some of the most innovative and popular web based applications (for example Skype, ChatRoulette, YouTube). However, new video-centric applications, which combine real-time, social networking and broadcasting are putting an even more intense spotlight on questions of privacy than ever before. This particular article profiles examples that are surely just web minutes away from the tipping point, giving users the chance to broadcast their lives in ways Twitter can only dream of. Surprisingly, the article only touches on privacy issues, suggesting that we are too willing to post personal information about ourselves. Reader comments rightly point out we are moving into very murky territory where the attitude seems to be that anything posted on the web is fair game and can be used against the person who posted it.

What does it mean for both your privacy and personal reputation if you are putting everything online? If governments/corporations/employers etc can access so much personal information about you, how will this affect your life and the 'control' that such organisations have?

The policy of cencorship of internet is strongly supported by mainstream media in China.

DNSSEC was developed to add security to the Domain Name System . The tool works by adding information on the origin of authentication of DNS data, data integrity and authenticated denial of existence. DNSSEC obviously adds more information to queries and therefore increases the size of those query packets. Where older routers exist the additional information included in the larger data packets may not be recognised and therefore the DNS will not be resolved. The end user, in this instance, would not be able to visit the site they requested. The fear campaigns in the community have been around that very point: that the implementation of DNSSEC will not resolve host names. This article provides some light explanation around the rollout of DNSSEC and lays to rest the fear mongering by stating that there, to date, has been minimum negative effect of the DNSSEC that has been rolled out.

Google Australia says here that the mandatory internet filtering is too wide and they believe that the filtering not only would slow user access speeds, but also questions the legitimacy of the measure because of the associated restrictions on access to information

D.Net, a not-for-profit research organisation has set up a program in Bangladesh called InfoLadies which involves women armed with netbooks, mobile phones to provide information gathered from the internet to villagers who would otherwise lack access to this information. The types of information provided typically cover hygiene, farming and childbirth. The program is an extension of the MobileLadies program which came before it. Another, more detailed article here: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=99804 Can programs like this contribute to a decrease in the digital divide?