Group items tagged

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."

Open Standards vs Cross Platform - it's starting to sound like politics. Confusing. Misleading. Impractical. Constrained.

A good discussion on Apple's view on Flash, following our class discussion on standards and the iPad not supporting Flash.

Came across this article the other day - basically saying that if Adobe wants to prove that Flash can run on iPhones without any major issues, they can simply use iPhones that have been "jailbroken" (meaning they've been hacked and any app can be downloaded - circumventing the App Store). Adobe could create a Flash app to run on the iPhones and prove its points about security and performance of Flash on mobile devices. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/may/18/apple-adobe-flash-player-solution

A Crikey article on DBCDE's proposal of mandatory filtering and the "Submissions on measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material". The Government's courting of mandatory filtering has drawn widespread criticism from such stakeholders as Google, the Internet Industry Association and highly regarded academics such as Professors Catherine Lumby, Lelia Greean and John Hartley. One of the main concerns is that the scope of the filtering is too wide and will have major implications on what content is available online. This article also helpfully provides links to some of the submissions.

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."

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

A media rights watchdog has listed Australia in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.

Why does everyone get so worked up with the word "censorship"? In some cases, like with child porn, if a medium is used to violate a human right or indeed foments a crime, then there should be some sort of control. Why look at it from a b&w perspective when there are so many grey areas?

Is this really where Australia's future in censorships is heading?

Apple announced that it will be now possible to run different apps on the iPhone at the same time and keep them constantly running in the background. This means for application providers that they coud now constantly get information on the whereabouts of their users instead of the sporadic data they got so far. Exciting new opportunities for Apple's new "iAd" that offers targeted advertising. At the same time there are privacy concerns on several fronts.

Israeli soldier posts the details of an operation on Facebook, and the operation is called off. Ironic: the Internet, originally a military tool, causes trouble in the military. Like with potential victims for kidnapping in Mexico posting personal details online: should basic media literacy education be provided for the use of social media among groups with potential risks?

Some great analysis and summary from Fast Company on Google pulling the plug on their Chinese search engine, and how this relates to their submission to the Australian Government regarding their proposed ISP filtering. If you're not familiar with Fast Company, this is how they modestly describe themselves: "Fast Company sets the agenda, charting the evolution of business through a unique focus on the most creative individuals sparking change in the marketplace. By uncovering best and "next" practices, the magazine and website help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively. Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business."

Everyone's probably bookmarked this article already! Sentencing senior Google execs on the grounds of profiting from illegal acts is probably also technically correct. Google's defense is the neutrality of the internet, which is questionable as Google do adjust content to suit, for their own profit. Which layer is this issue on? Will increasing controls on content change our internet beyond recognition? Marcuse says that tolerance can not tolerate hateful speech and acts or it is no longer truly tolerant. That's quite a conundrum!

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

Looks like Facebook has figured out a way to tell other companies more about us at the click of a 'Like' button. On the one hand, it's personalisation at its best, having content served up to a user based on what they like on the sites they visit. But on the other hand, users are unknowingly sharing a lot of personal information about themselves to their networks on Facebook and, inadvertently, the company they just visited via a website.

"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."

People who own land and have invested on having properties on Second Life have filed a demand against Linden Lab. An interesting study case that illustrate how online issues can have deep impact on offline matters.

Interesting article touching on issues of the digital divide, and how technology can affect and help development. The article also discusses the effect that technology, particularly mobiles, is having on politics in India - particularly on enfranchising and mobilising the lower castes.

"A national review of computer game classification laws is currently in progress and work is also under way to develop proposals to improve compliance by retailers."" The article also leads with the factlet that Aust is one of only Western nations WITHOUT an R18+. On this front, the current internet governance proposals looks like a lay down misere.