Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by Weiman Kow

Contents contributed and discussions participated by Weiman Kow

Simple Middle Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics
Weiman Kow

AFP: Date Check turns smart phones into 'sleaze detectors' - 0 views

www.google.com/...M5g0LHRPEK2Qjh7KEIEGc46bkwfJUg

datecheck privacy

shared by Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
     
    Want to know whether the new person you've met is the right one? iPhone's Datecheck can help you check his/her criminal records, address (whether he/she's staying alone or with room mates/spouses/parents), even how big their house is and how much it costs, scans through facebook, myspace, flickr, and linkedin, and if you're still interested, their horoscope. All that once you've got their name and phone number... Talk about stalker-esque technology, this's got to be the tops. Massive invasion of privacy, anyone? It should be avaliable on iPhone now..and in a year for the Blackberry.
Weiman Kow

Think you're a good employee? Office snooping software can tell - CNN.com - 1 views

edition.cnn.com/...index.html

office surveillance

shared by Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09 - Cached
  • More than that, Killock believes using such software can have a negative psychological impact on a workplace. "It is a powerful signal that you do not fully trust the people you are paying or perhaps don't invest the time and care to properly manage them," he says.
    • Weiman Kow
      Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
       
      the presentation group brought up this point.. =)
  • Ultimately, true privacy only begins outside the workplace -- and the law supports that. In the United States, at least all email and other electronic content created on the employer's equipment belongs to the employer, not the employee. Slackers would do well to remember that.
  • But Charnock is keen to stress Cataphora isn't only about bosses spying on their team -- it works both ways.
    • Weiman Kow
      Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
       
      Is that really true?
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Our software builds a multi-dimensional model of normal behavior,
  • the emails they send, the calls they make and the documents they write.
  • [We can tell] who is really being consulted by other employees, and on which topics; who is really making decisions
  • The software began as a tool to assist lawyers with the huge corporate databases often subpoenaed as evidence in trials but has now moved into human resources.
  • We do have extensive filters to try to weed out people who are highly productive in areas such as sports banter and knowledge of local bars,
  • Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
     
    Just a link on advances in extensive office surveillance - this program is supposed to "separate the good employees from the bad by analyzing workers 'electronic footprints' -- the emails they send, the calls they make and the documents they write"
Weiman Kow

TJC Stomp Scandal - 34 views

started by Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09 no follow-up yet
  • Weiman Kow
    #3 Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09
     
    You're right Weiye, its TPJC...

    Oh man, I hope I haven't participated in an act of defamation/online rumor-mongering with that typo...which incidentally I still can't find a way to edit...(help anyone?)

    There are many issues with how STOMP is run, and I have much to say on its intrusive surveillance and flawed reporting, but for now I'll address the issue at hand -

    To re-phrase the question I asked, since the discussion has clarified it up slightly:

    Who holds the responsibility for posting erroneous (and damaging) information? Is it STOMP for posting it up after an editor has gone through it, or is the the irresponsible public who sent in the information?

    I believe as you do that the STOMP should take up responsibility of it, even though it does not state explicitly that it reports the truth. However, I will not generalize it to ALL platform providers, as this case is very specific to STOMP.

    The reason I believe STOMP has responsibility in this case are as follows:

    1. The articles go through an editor before being published - hence the editor has responsibility in the matter.

    2. It associates itself closely with the Straits Times, a reliable newspaper, and hence implies that the same discernment and judgement in reporting is present in STOMP. It is evident that this is not the case. However, this implied relationship gives the articles on STOMP a greater sense of authority than they would if they were posted in any other forum, and the public will give greater importance to the articles posted.

    Hence, if the incident regarding TPJC couple were posted on the hardwarezone forums, and the controversy resulted in their dismissal from student council, I will not demand that the platform provider is responsible, because it does not give the illusion of authority, which STOMP does.

    In that case it is clearly the responsibility and fault of the person who posted the incident for misrepresenting facts, much like if the article appears in someone's blog.

    Also, just stop and think for a moment - will the principal dismiss the students from their positions if the article were posted on someone's blog or in a random forum? He would probably be hesitant to act based on such flimsy evidence.

    Obviously, it makes a difference if STOMP was the one who reports it.

    Here's a talk by a STOMP editor: http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1612. I just found it and hadn't had the time to watch it yet, but the brief given by the blogger seems to list several ethical issues that STOMP tried to address during the talk.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page