Surveillance. Amanda L. French, Ph.D. » Blog Archive » Facebook terms of servi. February 16, 2009 – 2:28 pm UPDATE 5/8/09: Facebook revised its Terms of Service, aka the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.” Here’s their blog post about it, and here’s the current policy. With today’s outrage over Facebook’s newly altered Terms of Service at its peak, I figured I’d do a quick comparison of their terms of service as regards user-uploaded content to the terms specified by other social networking sites, just to see if said outrage is fully justified. It looks as though the finger-pointing at the Bush robots.txt file wasn’t justified, for instance, and I was guilty of spreading that story.
Conclusion? Facebook apparently wants to keep all its rights to your stuff after you remove it from Facebook, and even after you delete your Facebook account; they just removed the lines that specified that their rights end when your content comes down. So let’s look at what other popular user-generated content sites say about their rights to your stuff: See? Yahoo!’ Yahoo! Yahoo! Webwijs – Bits of Freedom. Onze zelfverdedigingsgids voor internetters, ‘Webwijs – Online Zelfverdediging in 5 Clicks’, is inmiddels een week oud. Vanaf de lancering op 8 juni 2010 heeft Webwijs de gemoederen flink bezig gehouden: verrassend veel media-aandacht, een boel nuttige reacties van gebruikers en af en toe terechte kanttekeningen. Tijd voor een tussenstand.
Ook al is Webwijs de eerste zelfverdedigingsgids die een breed pakket aan maatregelen biedt tegen spam, virussen en privacyschendingen – het verschijnen van de gids is op zichzelf geen schokkend wereldnieuws. Toch kon Webwijs, ondanks de verkiezingen en de start van het WK-voetbal, op veel media-aandacht rekenen. Dat heeft uitzonderlijk hoog aantal page-views en downloads opgeleverd. Die media-aandacht heeft niet alleen het gebruik van Webwijs gestimuleerd, het heeft ook nuttige tips opgeleverd.
Er waren ook terechte kanttekeningen. Al met al kijkt Bits of Freedom tevreden terug op de eerste week Webwijs. TrackMeNot. Background Public awareness of the vulnerability of searches to systematic surveillance and logging by search engine companies, was initially raised in the wake of a case, initiated August 2005, in which the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a subpoena to Google for one week's worth of search query records (absent identifying information) and a random list of one million URLs from its Web index. This was cited as part of its defense of the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
When Google refused, the DOJ filed a motion in a Federal District Court to force compliance. Google argued that the request imposed a burden, would compromise trade secrets, undermine customers' trust in Google, and have a chilling effect on search activities. In March 2006, the Court granted a reduced version of the first motion, ordering Google to provide a random listing of 50,000 URLs, but denied the second motion, namely, the request for search queries. Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline | Electronic. Since its incorporation just over five years ago, Facebook has undergone a remarkable transformation. When it started, it was a private space for communication with a group of your choice. Soon, it transformed into a platform where much of your information is public by default. Today, it has become a platform where you have no choice but to make certain information public, and this public information may be shared by Facebook with its partner websites and used to target ads.
Websci10_submission_3.pdf (application/pdf-object) Privacy Theater: Why Social Networks Only Pretend To Protect You. Editor’s note: The following guest post was written by Rohit Khare, the co-founder of Angstro. Building his latest project, social address book Knx.to, gives him a deep familiarity with the privacy policies of all the major social networks. I’d be wishing everyone a happier New Year if it were easier to mail out greeting cards to friends on Facebook and colleagues on LinkedIn.
I’d like to use knx.to, our free, real-time social address book, but their ‘privacy’ policies prevent us from downloading contact information, even for my own friends. At least those Terms of Service (ToS) that force us to copy addresses and phone numbers one-by-one also prevent scoundrels from stealing our identity; reselling our friends to marketers; and linking our life online to the real world. Right? Wrong. Industrial-Scale Identity Theft Don’t blame the victims.
APIs: Automating Privacy Intrusions? He (or She) Who Must Not Be Named There aren’t many technical countermeasures once data has been copied. Companies / Technology - Facebook hit by privacy blow. Viewcontent.cgi (application/pdf-object) Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Medi. Archives » How to Adjust your Facebook Privacy Settings.
Papers. Tufekci, Z (2010). Who Acquires Friends Through Social Media and Why? “Rich Get Richer” versus “Seek and Ye Shall Find.” In Proceedings of the 4th Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM, 2010). ICWSM '09. There is an ongoing debate, not just among academics but in popular culture, about whether social media can expand people’s social networks, and whether online friends can be “real” friends. Our Data, Ourselves. In the information age, we all have a data shadow. We leave data everywhere we go. It's not just our bank accounts and stock portfolios, or our itemized bills, listing every credit card purchase and telephone call we make. It's automatic road-toll collection systems, supermarket affinity cards, ATMs and so on. It's also our lives. Our love letters and friendly chat.
What happens to our data happens to ourselves. This shadow self doesn't just sit there: It's constantly touched. Who controls our data controls our lives. It's true. We need to take back our data. Our data is a part of us. We need a comprehensive data privacy law. This is a tall order, and it will take years for us to get there. Bruce Schneier is Chief Security Technology Officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World .
Imagined Communities. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. Facebook: threats to privacy. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. 5 reasons why social networks fail. I was recently invited by Jason Calacanis to A Small World , the uber-exclusive social network (don’t ask for invitations, it’s a privilege I haven’t been granted since I’m a newcomer there).
This has prompted me to think about a number of issues relating to social networks in general. In this entry, I will try to look at why social networks fail. Subsequent entries will focus on why they succeed and what opportunities they create. So without further ado, here are five reasons why social networks fail: 5. The first reason I would highlight, and part of the reason why social networks have not really gained much traction outside of a self-selected group of people is the amount of privacy concerns that exist within certain age groups. 4. Most social networks are putting a heavy emphasis on how many connection a user have. However, few of the social networking sites are doing anything to gate the amount of connection. 3. Context is generally missing from most social networks. 2. 1. David Weinberger: Facebook's Privacy Default - Media on The. With its new advertising infrastructure, Facebook is being careful to protect privacy of information.
But they are bucking — and perhaps helping to transform — the norms of privacy. At its most basic, Facebook is getting the defaults wrong. The new ad infrastructure enables Facebook to extend their reach onto other companies' sites. For example, if you rent a copy of "Biodome" from Blockbuster.com, Blockbuster will look for a Facebook cookie on your computer. If it finds one, it will send a ping to Facebook. Facebook has also created a new type of entity to allow non-people to have a presence in the system. Facebook makes an astounding array of information available to its advertisers so that they can precisely "target" likely suspects. Yet, I find myself creeped out by this system because Facebook gets the defaults wrong in two very significant areas. Further, we are not allowed to opt out of the system.
Why? Our privacy norms are changing rapidly. Rce » Weeffouten in het net.