A controversial bill regarding retention of Internet records passed through committee and was approved for consideration by Congress in December.
The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 would require Internet providers to retain archives of every subscriber’s online…
I found it interesting that Lamar Smith, a Christian Scientist, has been in congress since before ISPs were delivering internet service to users. While I applaud the inherent intent to provide stricter controls and penalties for child pornographers and providers, I’m appalled at the methods designed in this bill to do so.
The provision to constantly monitor a users access goes completely against our 4th Amendment rights which guard Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and should be struck from the bill completely. In addition I do not trust ISP providers to spend the proper amounts of money to retain this data securely from illicit access and even human error/exposure. If Citibank can’t do it, a mom n pop ISP is an easy target.
The most ridiculous brand of human being, in my opinion, is the one who responds to online privacy concerns with “Everything on Facebook is public. I don’t have anything to hide.” I’m interested in what these people say when they realize that Facebook automatically sends certain purchases to your profile without your permission, and that its cookies track and record every Web site you visit on your browser even when you’re logged out of Facebook. But hey, it’s all public, right?
That’s it. Game over. Just deleted my Facebook account.
Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit. The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate browser for Facebook interactions.
A friend recently asked me why Facebook was showing her someone as a suggested contact even though she’s only ever corresponded with this person once by email, and doesn’t have them in her address book. How did Facebook even know that she knew this person? I’ve had a similar scenario, and I bet…
I’ve always used “spam” email accounts for signing up for social networking sites and within those accounts they’ve had a limited email contact list, however, even the prospects that my “spam” contacts could be presented to me as a future connection on their profiles, really disturbs me.
This is just more ammo to my argument, if you want to have a private online profile, limit your exposure at every turn - do not offer up your email accounts to be scanned for connections…
I completely agree with Mike Gotta’s post and echo his “health dose of skepticism”. The reason why young people put “all” their information online or freely available in social platforms is very much the same reason why in the 80’s and 90’s we would all freely open up any email that was sent directly to us, regardless of sender = we didn’t know yet the security issues and problems that could arise from such cavalier actions. ~ Austin Vegas
Earlier this year, Facebook’s Zuckerberg said that the age of privacy is over. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, LinkedIn’s Hoffman echoed that sentiment (view the video below) - musing that privacy was an issue of “old people” and that younger people are not so concerned over privacy. Many will disagree that privacy is a concern only to certain demographics and many will also disagree that people have to cede privacy simply to leverage social networking. It borders on the absurd and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge about a complicated challenge - or reveals the dilemma operators of social network sites face in terms of a credible business model. In this case, I believe it’s both. LinkedIn and Facebook simply do not seem to understand the social dynamics around privacy and compound the problem by implementing technology in a way that exacerbates the privacy challenge (perhaps more so in the case of Facebook).
In order to establish sustainable business models, operators of social network sites will continue to change terms of service and other policies to forcefully encourage people to become uncomfortably public. Twitter perhaps has avoided some of these issues because there are few controls over how people share information Twitter begins the relationship with its members in a more transparent manner - that ”everything is on the public timeline”. However, Facebook long ago set expectations by offering members a more complete set of controls for people to share information on a perceived limited basis. So when executives from consumer social network sites talk about privacy, I react to whatever they say with a health dose of skepticism. It is self-serving in fact for social network site execs to go on stage and diminish the value of privacy when they benefit by its very erosion (to the dismay of members).
The risks and rewards of sharing information online | John Gapper’s Business Blog | FT.com
It can be hard to find an actual disagreement at Davos, given the social effects of sticking a lot of people in workshops and asking them to flesh out the future of the world convivially.
So it was encouraging (for a journalist) to come across a clear and important divide in the first session I attended this morning, on internet social networks.
The topic was privacy, a contentious one for social networks such as Facebook (represented in the session by Randi Zuckerberg, sister of its founder). Facebook’s recent changes to its privacy settings to open up more content to the public caused a backlash.
Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, the professional social network, told the session that “all of the concerns about privacy tend to be old people issues.” Young people generally put mobile phone numbers on social networks because “the value of being connected and transparent is so high.”