Questions from Jason Calacanis: Is Facebook unethical, clueless or unlucky?

Standard

Questions (hit reply, or post to your blog):

1. Is Facebook clueless, unethical or just unlucky? Why?

2. Will Facebook’s latest behavior result in more lawsuits and/orindustry regulation?

3. Do you trust Facebook with your information?

via Is Facebook unethical, clueless or unlucky? « The Jason Calacanis Weblog.

1. I’d say all three: they are unlucky because they unethically adopt the clueless innocent pose in front of their users.

2. Yes on the lawsuits, because Facebook is big enough that it’s going to get lawsuits no matter what it does. However, I have seen enough outrage, and not just from Jason, that I believe this latest privacy action will result in more lawsuits on this specific subject. I am also still naive enough to hope that a few more “best practices” sorts of announcements regarding privacy might be put out by other Internet companies, specifically geared at the naive first-time user.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Fighting terror a bit too far

Standard

I’m all for fighting terror, but this seems too much of a “Big Brother” item to me..

FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping – CNN.com
CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) — The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.

The FBI wants to use eye scans, combined with other data, to help identify suspects.

But it’s an issue that raises major privacy concerns — what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

A cool thing that I hope will happen.

Standard

I gotta find out where to sign up for this…

Privacy groups pitch “don’t track me” ad server blacklist

Privacy groups pitch “don’t track me” ad server blacklist

By Nate Anderson | Published: October 31, 2007 – 12:37PM CT

The Do Not Call list has proved a huge hit with consumers. Now, a collection of privacy advocates wants the Federal Trade Commission to launch a similar Do Not Track List that will prevent behavioral advertisers from tracking online activities over time.

Technorati Tags:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Privacy

Standard

Much talk about privacy and civil liberties, especially vis a vis their impact, real or imagined, upon national security.

I already know Big Brother is watching. This fact has, curiously, ceased to bother me. Let him watch.

What it boils down to for me is this:
Do you have the courage to say what you think and believe, regardless of who is watching?

Technorati Tags:

In which I sense the future forming

Standard

XDI.ORG – An explanation of i-names
The success of the Internet has led to an explosion of different electronic addresses: email, SMS/MMS, instant messaging, etc. As powerful and convenient as these addresses are, they all have one serious flaw: they are extremely hard to protect from spam, viruses, worms, and other security and privacy violations.

A new type of address has been developed to solve this problem. Called an i-name, it is the first universal private address—a single address you can use for all types of electronic communications while always maintaining control of your privacy.

qotd 2

Standard

I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.

— Arthur C. Clarke

Time for appropriate cheering

Standard

Finally, the powers that be realize that not all pursuits of profit warrant annoying potential customers without reason, other than the fact they exist.

from andrésgentry :: water

Do-Not-Call Registry is Constitutional

Here’s something sensible.

Comparing the do-not-call list to a “No Solicitation” sign, a federal court today upheld the measure, striking down complaints from telemarketers that the registry restricted free speech rights.

A three judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected claims from telemarketers that the list violated the First Amendment because it does not apply to charitable or political organizations.

“We hold that the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advance’s the government’s important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse,” according to the decision.