Group items tagged

How do you stop hackers from attacking your network? Build an entirely new infrastructure. That's the idea behind the new .secure network, which will work just like any other network except for one thing: once you enter, you waive your right to privacy. 

We tend to speak of journalists, of their role, their rights, their responsibilities and very often their lack of restraint and how it should be addressed. But this is misleading, and prevents us from seeing some of the complexities and possibilities, because the word 'journalist', in this context, covers two very different groups of people. One group is the actual journalists, as traditionally understood, and the other is those people whose principal professional activity is invading other people's privacy for the purpose of publication.

Corporations have no right to "personal privacy" when it comes to government records requested under the Freedom of Information Act, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In today's Web 3.0 personal data rich economy, reputation is replacing cash, Fertik believes. And he is confident that his company, Reputation.com, is well placed to become the new rating index of this digital ecosystem. But Fertik isn't ecstatic about the way in which new online products, such as facial recognition technology, are exploiting the privacy of online consumers. Arguing that "data is the new oil," Fertik believes that the only people not benefitting from today's social economy are consumers themselves. Rather than government legislation, however, the solution, Fertik told me, are more start-up entrepreneurs like himself providing paid products that empower consumers in our Web 3.0 world of pervasive personalized data. This is the second and final part of my interview with Fertik. Yesterday, he explained to me why people will pay for privacy.

companies see consumer data as something that they can use to target ads or offers, or perhaps that they can sell to third parties, but not as something that consumers themselves might want. Of course, this is not an entirely new idea, but most pundits on both sides - privacy advocates and marketers - don't realize that rather than protecting consumers or hiding from them, companies should be bringing them into the game. I believe that successful companies will turn personal data into an asset by giving it back to their customers in an enhanced form. I am not sure exactly how this will happen, but current players will either join this revolution or lose out.

real-name registration on China's social media platforms, a policy formally taking effect on March 16, was meant to ensure "the privacy and secrecy of individuals, corporations and the nation."

Companies who request for their customer's private information may in turn distribute these confidential particulars to others. As such, cases of fraud and identity theft have surfaced, with fraudsters using these distributed identities to apply for loans or credit cards. Unlike other countries, no privacy law to safeguard an individual's data against unauthorized commercial use has been put in place. As a result, fraudsters are able to ride on this loophole. Ethical Question: Is it right for companies to request for their customer's private information for certain reasons? Is it even fair that they distribute these information to third parties, perhaps as a way to make money? Problem: I think the main problem is that there isn't a law in Singapore that safeguards an individual's data against unauthorized commercial use. Even though the Model Data Protection Code scheme tries to do the above, it is after all, still a voluntary scheme. Companies can opt to adopt the scheme, but whether they choose to apply it regularly, is another issue. As long as a privacy law is not in place, this issue will continue to recur in Singapore.

Interesting Case In summary, the article discusses the court ruling of an online defamation case that took place in Korea. It involves Kim, the victim, who experienced the spread of false articles and defamatory comments that blamed him for his ex-girlfriend's suicide. The final verdict held Internet portals liable for the damages caused by the articles they displayed on their website. This is despite the articles having been provided by external media outlets. The Supreme Court ordered four of the major portals involved in the case to pay a combined 30 million ($22,500) as compensation to Kim. Ethical Question I feel there are a few ethical issues that are at play in this case. One would be if it is ethical to publish sensitive information about an individual without his/her permission on the Internet. This is of more importance when the credibility of the information is dubious. Another ethical question would be if Internet Service Providers can be held responsible for information they did not create. Is it fair to charge them on the basis that they have failed to regulate the content displayed on their sites? Problem The problem with the first ethical question is that it creates a question of individual privacy rights against the freedom of speech for another. Publishing sensitive information that might not even be true about an individual infringes his/her privacy rights. However, it is the right of the publisher to have the freedom of speech to state what he/she thinks. The issue with the second ethical question is that the Internet Service Providers merely provide a platform for people to express their views. They should not be held liable for comments posted by individuals using the website. However, the opposing view would expect the ISPs to be responsible for the content they allow to be displayed on their site. They have to regulate the content to ensure that sensitive or controversial information that would cause irrevocable damage to others

Summary: The article highlights a story that shows how the internet erodes privacy and helps to spread online rumours. Question: With the revolutionay increase in blogs and other tools that make anyone a "creator of information", who guards the gates and prevent violations in privacy and other issues? Problem: The rise of New Media and the ethics of gossip and rumours.