Business Technology Leadership - CIO.co.uk. Steve Jobs house burgled; Address unknown to perp. A thief broke into Steve Jobs' former home last month, it's emerged. The now-dead Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) co-founder's Palo Alto property was raided to the tune of $60,000 or more. The offender didn't even realize the significance of the address; the alleged perpetrator is now in custody. In IT Blogwatch, bloggers break out the conspiracy theories. By Richi Jennings: Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Proof that nuns have no sense of humor... Colin Neagle reports: Police are currently holding 35-year-old Alameda, California, resident Kariem McFarlin on $500,000 bail and charging him with...
" Mike Rosenberg and Jason Green recount the police's version of events: Kariem McFarlin told them he was desperate for easy cash... Lance Whitney calls the alleged thief "clueless": Despite the large haul of personal computers, [he/she] seemed unaware of the home's famous owner. ... Meanwhile, Louis Bedigian subtends the 'new iPhone 5' angle: And Finally... U.S. becomes first participant in APEC cross-border privacy rules system. Microsoft Privacy & Safety. Eben Moglen - Freedom in The Cloud.
Jeff Jarvis and the two axes of privacy. Jeff Jarvis has an excellent, provocative post about the topic of the book he’s writing: the economics of publicness. (I’m paraphrasing. Read his post to get it right.) I replied in his comments. The following is a modified version of that comment: Your post makes me wonder about two axes of public-private. (Thank goodness there was only one axis of evil, because “two axes of evil” sounds extra special scary! By the way, I’m pretty sure I wrote something about this in Small Pieces Loosely Joined. Categories: culture, philosophy, social media dw. Online Privacy Protection Wins Investor Backing. Panopticlick. How Do You Define ‘Privacy Harm’? Jennifer Valentino-DeVries of the Wall Street Journal recently interviewed Ryan Calo about his concept of “privacy harm.”
I had posted a link to Ryan’s article earlier this month, but if you haven’t read it yet or would like to think more about his ideas — and I would hope that you do — you can read the interview here. If we take Ryan’s view (as I understand it), some events might constitute privacy violations but not privacy harms. I had discussed some of this with him prior to the release of his first draft as I think that we should consider something a privacy harm if it weakens our ability to protect our privacy going forward. The fact that we may not know about a privacy violation or even know that we have been harmed does not mean that we have not been harmed.
Ryan offers a two-category classification of privacy harms (footnotes omitted): I maintain that privacy harms fall into two categories. What do you think? Privacy is Hard Because People Change Their Minds. If there’s one issue that unites major Internet giants like Google and Facebook, it’s privacy. Google tries to offer a new service with Buzz, and triggers a series of privacy land mines; Facebook tries to offer new services and runs afoul of privacy concerns as well, then it changes its privacy settings and (according to some) makes the problem worse instead of better.
Why is privacy so hard? Sociologist Danah Boyd, who specializes in the way people use social networks, says in the latest issue of MIT’s Technology Review magazine that it’s because “the way privacy is encoded into software doesn’t match the way we handle it in real life.” Privacy settings are often binary: show this photo to these people, but not this update, and so on. We count on what Erving Goffman called “civil inattention”: people will politely ignore us, and even if they listen they won’t join in, because doing so violates social norms. Privacy is Hard Because People Change Their Minds. Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy - Security Watch. Privacy on the Internet is a real issue to be concerned with, but it's also often overdone. Privacy advocates can get tiresome with their indignation. It's easy to get angry at faceless corporations, but privacy on the Internet is more complicated than such advocates typically allow.
Paul Rubin, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics and Law at Emory University, lists today in the Wall Street Journal Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy. I agree, at least in part, with all of them. The first could be called a summary of all of them: Privacy is free, or the idea that you should be able to maintain absolute privacy and not pay any price for it. Rubin puts it in terms of the big picture: "The more privacy consumers have, the less information is available for use in the economy. Elsewhere Rubin points out something I've written before: Privacy is not an all-or-nothing issue.
The complete list; see the article for details on each: The Future of Privacy Forum Announces New Publication: “Privacy. WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) co-chairs announced a new competition-based project that is entitled: “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers.” This new publication is made possible in part by the generous support of LexisNexis, AT&T and others. The goal of this endeavor is to highlight important research and analytical work on a variety of privacy topics, and to ensure that policymakers are informed of the most influential scholarship as they address privacy issues. Academics, privacy advocates and Chief Privacy Officers on FPF’S Advisory Board will review the papers that are submitted. A selection of papers deemed best suited and most useful for policy makers in Congress, the FTC, FCC and state leaders, will be summarized and a compilation will be bound and sent to policymakers in the US and abroad.
Papers must be received by the Future of Privacy Forum by no later than July 15th, 2010. Banking on Our Privacy. Privacy is something we lose actively, not passively. Listen to the verbs of our digital lives: We browse the web and Google.We tweet and Twitter.We socially connect and Facebook.We move around the world as mayors on Foursquare. We charge our purchases on credit cards. We share our favorite places to dine, shop and travel on Blippy. Monthly all of this financial activity aggregates to us as a one-way mirror on PageOnce and Mint (now Intuit), disembodied from the holistic view the world at large sees of us.
For in microseconds, dozens of web service businesses peek in on and trawl our digital life patterns to fish-find and cast out a targeted digital hook for our next GroupOn or similarly emailed or blogosphere offering. Our multifunction cellphones continually transmit our location, feelings, spending, photos and other digital evidence of our lives, 24/7, 365 days per year, forever. Did we really think the Internet/Web was free? And what of geospatial identity? Dizzied by Data - The Chronicle Review. Daniel J. Solove In his short story "The Library of Babel," Jorge Luis Borges imagined an infinitely large library containing all books. Although the library was wondrous, people had no way of finding the right book. Much like Borges's library, the information age has presented us with a dizzying amount of data.
The past decade witnessed the rise of the interactive Internet—Web 2.0—where people not only consume information but also add to it. Millions of people started blogging; social-networking sites like Facebook amassed half a billion users; and sites like Wikipedia enticed people to collaborate and share their expertise. To cope with all this data, we created new ways to find it and analyze it.
Over the next decade, the ability to search for information and to analyze it will mature dramatically. Data-mining technology will also continue to develop at a rapid pace. The growth of information-analysis technology will have profound consequences, both good and bad. Daniel J. IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2010 – Hot Topics: Cédric Laurant and. At the recent IAPP Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., many hot topics were addressed: Privacy by Design, Behavioral Advertising, the new EU Cookie Consent Law, the Smart Power Grid, the Cloud, Web 2.0, the new EU Model Clause Agreements, Controllers, Processors and Sub-Processors, the recent Google convictions, to name just a few.
I interviewed a few prominent privacy professionals, attending and/or presenting at the summit on some of the important issues of the day. In this video, I interviewed Cédric Laurant, who is an attorney and an independent privacy consultant based in Belgium. Cédric was probably the only European to have braved the Icelandic ash clouds in order to make it to the IAPP Summit in Washington, D.C.
Cédric is closely involved in the brand new European Privacy and Human Rights ( EPHR) project. Technology Review: Why Privacy Is Not Dead. Each time Facebook’s privacy settings change or a technology makes personal information available to new audiences, people scream foul. Each time, their cries seem to fall on deaf ears. The reason for this disconnect is that in a computational world, privacy is often implemented through access control.
Yet privacy is not simply about controlling access. It’s about understanding a social context, having a sense of how our information is passed around by others, and sharing accordingly. As social media mature, we must rethink how we encode privacy into our systems. Privacy is not in opposition to speaking in public. We speak privately in public all the time. Whenever we speak in face-to-face settings, we modify our communication on the basis of cues like who’s present and how far our voices carry. All this also applies online, but with additional complications. When the privacy options available to us change, we are more likely to question the system than to alter our own behavior. Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » Don't Let Schools Chip Your Kids.
On Tuesday, preschoolers in Richmond, California showed up for school and were handed jerseys embedded with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. RFID tags are tiny computer chips that are frequently used to track everything from cattle to commercial products moving through warehouses. Now the school district is apparently hoping to use these chips to replace manual attendance records, track the children’s movements at school and during field trips, and collect other data like whether the child has eaten or not. While school officials and parents may have been sold on these tags as a "cost-saving measure," we are concerned that the real price of insecure RFID technology is the privacy and safety of small children. RFID has been billed as a "proven technology," but what’s actually been proven time and again (PDF) since the ACLU first looked at this issue in 2005 is just how insecure RFID chips can be: • What security measures are in place on the RFID chips?
Debates: Online privacy: Statements. Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Consumer Privacy. I am continuing my practice of sharing recent internet safety research pieces: Excerpt Remarks by the FTC: Privacy has been central to the Commission’s consumer protection mission for more than a decade. Over the years, the Commission has employed a variety of strategies to protect consumer privacy, including law enforcement, regulation, outreach to consumers and businesses, and policy initiatives.2 In 2006, recognizing the increasing importance of privacy to consumers and a healthy marketplace, the FTC established the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, which is devoted exclusively to privacy-related issues.3 Although the FTC’s commitment to consumer privacy has remained constant, its policy approaches have evolved over time. I. The FTC has a long track record of protecting consumer privacy.
A. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the FTC began addressing consumer concerns about the privacy of personal information provided in connection with online transactions. Linda Like this:
How Involved Should The Government Be In Protecting Online Privacy? The Economist is having one of its regular debates, this time on the question of whether or not governments should do more to protect online privacy. Speaking for the motion that government should do more is Marc Rotenberg of EPIC, while arguing that there are better ways to protect your privacy than expecting your government to help you is Jim Harper from the Cato Institute. Right now more people are siding with Rotenberg, but it seems like a classic "oh, somebody has to protect me! " sort of response. Harper's arguments make a lot more sense to me, with the key point being: do you really trust the government to protect your privacy? The American government, like others around the world, is a voracious information collector. It facilitates and promotes private-sector tracking and surveillance.
Rotenberg responds that individuals really can't do much in response, and uses the example of Google Buzz's privacy screwup as an example. Online privacy debates heat up in Washington. The issue of electronic privacy is as hot as the weather in Washington this summer. Last week, both the House and Senate held hearings on online privacy, featuring testimony from top executives from Facebook, Apple and Google. The Washington Post published a massive investigative report on the growth of “Top Secret America” in July. And the Wall Street Journal’s new series on online privacy, “What They Know,” has laid bare the scope of tracking technology on the Internet. In the Information Age, our family, friends, neighbors, employers and government all have unprecedented abilities to watch one another, changing the nature of our relationships, workplaces and schools.
Solving the privacy dilemma will be difficult, controversial and crucial for the nation’s citizens, businesses, regulators and lawmakers. Can privacy, social media and business get along? How might the FTC or FCC regulate online privacy? Online privacy hearings in Congress Rep. Related: