Group items tagged

The FBI's idea sounds like a good one, as it could lead to early warnings for law enforecement all around the world on any local or global threats, One good example of how a piece of software like this could have been used is the Norweigan massacre, as it was reported by the media that terrorist Anders Breivik had mentioned put forward extremist ideology and terrorist tendency while using the internet, going so far as to write a manifesto. On the other hand it would be vital for this application to fall under the Data Protection Act meaning data on individuals would have to be kept safe and up-to-date, it would only be kept for the necessary amount of time, and that all information would be deleted once a suspect was deemed innocent.

The concern is privacy.Apparently the FBI was able to acquire Kim DotCom's messages with other MegaUpload employers by means of spyware, which could access skype conversations stored on a local host. Even though the FBI had a warrant to search for information, this is still rather disconcerting. This software can easily be misused. The software is called CIPAV and it stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier. This software is able to send "network-level messages" containing the target computer's IP address, Ethernet MAC address, environment variables, the last-visited Web site, and other registry-type information including the name of the registered owner of the computer and the operating system's serial number. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10222294-38.html

I agree with you Morten. The social and ethical issue here is privacy. In the article they specify when saying "Sources told CNET yesterday that Skype, the Internet phone service now owned by Microsoft, was not asked by the feds to turn over information and was not served with legal process" that Skype did not give permission to the FBI to access this information. Even though the Data Protection Act states that "Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes." it is still not appropriate to "hack" into Kim DotCom's messages. Here is a link with the rules for Data Protection Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/1 Privacy is coming to bits, the only way we can talk to people knowing that knowing is going to get hold o f that information is by face-to-face communication, and even by that way people can be hearing the conversation secretly. Where has privacy gone?

I find, in this scenario, Facebook's behaviour immoral. They have known of this problem for three years, and they have yet to produce any progress. Facebook does not seem to respect one's stance on these things. If you wish the picture deleted, then it should be deleted.

The apparent deletion of photos takes place by the elimination "all of the metadata for the photo as well as any and all tagging and linking information. For all practical purposes, the photo no longer exists. However, technically, the bits that make up the photo persist somewhere. It's possible that someone who previously had access to a photo and saved the direct URL from the CDN (...) could still access the photo." http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-long-does-facebook-keep-data-of-a-deleted-account In the article, "Wolens claims that Facebook is on the verge of fixing up its content systems so that "deleted" photos are really, truly deleted from the CDN within 45 days." However, the reliability of this claim is compromised by Facebook's Terms of Service, which every user must comply prior to creating an account. Summing up, it grants Facebook the right to do whatever they like with old content. They can even sublicense it: "You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and DISTRIBUTE (through multiple tiers), any User Content." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html Note the contradictions with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998: "If you collect data about people for one reason, you can not use it for another; You can not give people's data to other people or

...organizations unless they agree;" http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act I get the impression that through blurring the ownership of intellectual property and personal records, social networks have some ulterior motives. The following passage in the article suggests the photos could, in fact, be instantly deleted from the CDN databases: "(Amusingly, after publishing the 2010 followup, Facebook appeared to delete my photos from its CDN that I had linked in the piece. (...) Other "deleted" photos that I had saved links to-ones that weren't from my account and were deleted even earlier than mine-remained online.)" Zuckerberg counterargues: "trust us, we're not doing this to profit from you, it's so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html In the end, it is in the hands of the user to control what is shared and given up ownership of.

This is a major security and reliability issue as government servers are not taking the right measures to protect people's personal information. Anonymous claim they only acquired a small amount of information just to prove how incompetent the system is, if it were a hacking group looking to use the data in illegal ways then this would be a big problem.

"http://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/"

This social and ethical issue (Privacy) has been an issue recently. Privacy is a fundamental human right, we have the right to protect our information.However, privacy has become a huge issue throughout this years. The development of new information and communication technologies has grown rapidly throughout this years which is leading to a decrease in privacy. More information about an individual is being required on social neworks meaning that there will be more access to people's private information. This article is bringing awareness to people that if nothing changes quickly, that online privacy will eventually end and personal information will simply be available to any one on the internet.

"have very little answer to onion routing, and when combined with th"

"Well, it depends on what you mean as "own."  Under copyright law, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or the photograph or video is shot as part of your job, a copyright to a photograph generally belongs to the creator.  As the copyright owner, you own the exclusive rights to display, copy, use, produce, distribute and perform your creation as you see fit and approve.  As the subject of the photograph, you have a right to publicity, which allows you to get paid for the commercial use of your name, likeness or voice."

 If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers" feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text- based documents on Google's own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user's computers.

"Twitter worm was unleashed by 17-year-old Australian"

Germany opposes Google Street View switch-on

"Networks blur the private and public divide"

"NSW Government recording features for facial recognition "

"X-raying you without permission"

Where the World Watches the world.

Brief description of social and ethical concerns wikileaks raises.