Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Concerns arise again regarding Facebook's privacy invasion as founder Mark Zuckerberg's Instant Messenger correspondence dated back in his College years is exposed. Offering his friend access to users' private details, the entrepreneur-to-be called them a foul name. In this commentary, the author notes the company's attitude toward privacy is reflected in Zuckerberg's early aggressive treatment of users' information.

Privacy addressed by Zukerberg. Shall we believe him? Article goes hand in hand with this week's readings. 

This is like PJFenwick in 3D. Eric Gradman has great art work "The Cloud Mirror" which demonstrates many interesting social features about privacy, identity and people. Like we queue up to make idiots of ourselves and hand over our password on public computers without question. All done using Facebook Connect and Python.

International network, local lawsuit and regulation. The Australian Government is asked to justify the business deal with Google for it's privacy issue. Since google revealed to mistakenly capture private information from it's street scanning.

Ilse Aigner, Germany's minister of food, agriculture and consumer protection, who usually concentrates on issues over rotten meat, genetically engineered corn and imitation cheese, recently took on a different kind of issue: the Internet and data privacy. Suddenly Aigner finds herself facing online giants Amazon, Facebook and, above all, Google. Soon Google plans to send cars equipped with cameras out onto Germany's roads once again for the company's Street View project. Aigner is now insisting that Google should ask permission before violating the privacy of German citizens. The minister's attack and the following discussions reveal just how divided the German government is when it comes to the online world. The debate revolves around questions of national security and individual self-determination on the Internet. But it also concerns the power of the large giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and MySpace, as well as the question of what these companies are doing with the records of our everyday data, and how they will be able to obtain information from us, influence us or perhaps even control us in the future. It seem like, once again, a German politician is exploiting the popular issue of internet privacy and censorship in a superficial way in the hope of scoring political points.

Google speaks out on censorship and the violation of user privacy in China. Yahoo in the US agrees but its Chinese partner Alibaba Group does not. Are they afraid of a backlash from Beijing and fear for their ungoing business success? Makes me wonder how bad the quagmire in China really is...

Digital Due Process is the name of a new coalition composed among other companies by Google, Microsoft and AT&T advocationg for a new legislation to strenght online privacy laws to prevent government access to private digital information in the US

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.

Canada, alongside France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom have issued a warning to Google on the grounds that the company is ignoring privacy and legislation with respect to launching their products (Google Buzz). This is a clear example of when a company, may appear to attempt to protect their users (Google vs. China) while, in the company's own interest, these rules and regulations may be ignored. How much trust should we put into any company that offers services free to the public, and exactly what liberties do we give up when we sign up for that service?

Facebook alters functionality and gets more personal, raising increasing concerns about user privacy.

The Dutch consumers'association is trying to take some responsibility for privacy online away from the consumer and shift it to the owners of social networking websites. The association believes it is too difficult and time consuming for consumers to set the privacy settings themselves.

As a privacy alert, the story reveals that Facebook offers Web sites its users' personal information. As the author explains, if visiting a Web site while logged in Facebook, the user's online activity on it will be memorised through social plugins; custom-designed content based on his preference, accordingly, will be delivered to his Facebook friends who visit afterward, so long as they's logged in, too.

MySpace is making updates to users privacy settings in order to simplify the process for controlling how your data is shared/displayed

In the aftermath of the recent death of 18-year-old Nona Belomesoff, following a "Facebook meeting" comes an outcry from parent and teacher groups to prevent teens from accessing Facebook at school. According to Laurel Papworth, banning access is not the answer. Education is.

This article discusses how banning Facebook is not the answer for prevention of tragedies of deaths like Sydney teen who had met a "friend" on Facebook. Though it may seem commonly obvious, I do not believe simply warning and educating children/teenagers about the potential dangers of social networking and strangers is enough; but perhaps going a step further and accepting that meeting "friends" through social networks has become a social norm. Therefore conversations amongst children/teenagers/friends/parents alike must be initiated so that there is some sort of support system to ensure safety. As the online social networks expand the definition of "friends", one must consider the social construction of how people now view the world based on these norms.

Rather than suggesting that social networking sites should be "banned" to protect the safety of children, people should ensure they understand how to be safe online.  This also includes understanding the changes to a sites privacy policies and the impacts these changes can have to your privacy settings.

Perfect for this week's topic on privacy.

Blog entry, discussing Facebook privacy issue after viewing the F8 conference on Facebook.

An original article by David Armano published in the Harward Business Review. Privacy. It's the key word in most Facebook-related headlines these days. But it's not the key idea. For the author it is really about is not the limits of Privacy but the notion of agility - the ability of an organization to implement rapid iterations in their products and services for better and/or worse.

OIX is a new organization that will try to provide identity credentials that can be accepted by both the private and public sectors. But, like some of this initiatives, government-wise it will only work, initially, in the U.S. Questions on privacy can also be raised? Wouldn't OIX allow for easier access to the whereabouts of an individual's online persona? 

Article from today's Sydney Morning Herald about the settlement of a lawsuit related to a program called Beacon. I think its important that Facebook is scrutinised regularly, particularly in relation to its quite invasive policies when it comes to collecting data about its users for marketing purposes.

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!