Ever since Facebook came out they always emphasised on the idea of connections, however when Facebook first made their debut in 2005, it was a private space for communication. Today Facebook has transformed in a forum where much of you information is public by default.
In 2006, Facebook's privacy policy stated that "no personal information that you submit to Facebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings." Then as time progressed in 2006, Facebook allowed your personal information to be visible to to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about, yet they still allowed their users decent amount of privacy.
However, in 2009 Facebook decided that their default privacy setting should change from "private" to "everyone". Facebook believe that since their were a social networking site -making their users personal information available to everyone, would open more lines of communication.
Finally in April 2010, Facebook's new private policy stated that "When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connection, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” ... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection."
Clearly, we can conclude that Facebook was meant to offer its users complete and effective controls over their personal information. Nonetheless, as Facebook grew larger and became more important, it changed from users control to advertising and businesses purposes. They made available more and more of its users' information, while limiting the users' options to control their own information.
Complete Article at: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Technology and Relationships
Technology has affected my generation in a way no one could've imagined. It has altered our languages and even the process of creating friendships and other kinds of relationships. So being I that grew up in a time where instant messages and texts replace real face-to-face contact, how are the generations that have come after mine being affected?
The average high school kid sends about 50 texts a day, if not more. Psychologists are researching this behavior to see if these kind of relationships can help teens to become social-functioning adults in the real world. While the research is still inconclusive and kind of vague, the worry that they have is that this kind of "connecting" is superficial, and could affect how these children function in the real world. Another big concern is teens engaging in cyber-bullying and "sexting" I'm quoting here from npr.com (and linking the full article for anyone to read) because it explains best what the main concern is:
"One of the concerns is that, unlike their parents — many of whom recall having intense childhood relationships with a bosom buddy with whom they would spend all their time and tell all their secrets — today’s youths may be missing out on experiences that help them develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language." (Stout,2010)
While people on the other side argue that technology has brought kids closer than ever to one another, there is still some research that needs to be done in order to find out whether this kind of communication is beneficial or not.
The arguments on both sides are valid. Teens who only interact with other people virtually could be missing out on valuable face-time with real people, but what's worse, a kid who only talks to people online or one who talks to no one...at all? It's a conundrum, and probably one that won't be figured out until we are a LOT older...and maybe a little blind from always having our faces on some sort of screen....
Apple’s iPad, a savior comes to rescue?
In my previous blog post, I gave some analysis on the statistics of advertising revenues distributed in old and new media. One creative way the old media can take advantage of the recent release of iPad is to attract advertisers through developing applications compatible with the device where users can download and read its content.
As of now, ABC is the only television network that is offering an iPad application where users can download and watch its episodes for free. ABC network said that in the 10 days since the iPad’s debut, its TV-show app has been downloaded a total of 205,000 times, “giving the Disney network a presence on nearly half the 450,000 devices that Apple says it has sold”. (WSJ.com).
ABC network also says that it will eventually give local advertisers the ability to sell ads that would be seen only by iPad users in their markets, thereby targeting audiences according to their geographical locations.
According to Smith, “the app represents one of the most ambitious attempts to date by a traditional media company to create a new business model on the new Apple device.”(WSJ.com). At times like this, creativity may bring surprising results. As seen from ABC’s initial success with iPad, many other television networks and print media may follow suit.
To view the original article, please click here.
Privacy Concerns Limits Online Ads
A recent study done by The Ponemon Institute discovered that privacy concerns has definitely affected the online ad industry and prompted many marketers to use online behavioral advertising — based on tracking a user’s Web browsing habits — 75 percent less than they would otherwise.
Nonetheless, the 90 companies and organizations surveyed reduced their behavioral advertising, even though they estimated the tracking-based ads were 50 percent more efficient in generating sales than conventional online display ads.
“Privacy fears are definitely having an economic impact,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of the privacy and security research group. The markets are holding back, Mr. Ponemon says, because of the uncertain legal and regulatory environment. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are mulling tighter restrictions on online data collection, disclosure and use.
However, the industry has set forth its efforts in the last year to develop a meaningful self-regulatory program in which advertiser can still incorporate targeted ads, while keeping the consumer informed. "The effort includes public education and technology — a click-on icon — to tell consumers what is happening when they see a targeted ad that uses demographics and behavioral data." (NY Times)
It was also suggested that they include limiting the ability of Web sites and ad networks to use behavioral data to 24 hours after it is collected, and requiring consumers’ permission — an opt-in approach — to hold such data beyond 24 hours.
The groups also say individual privacy rights should include being able to find out who is tracking them and know what information is being disseminated about them.“The online ad lobby is spinning a glossy fairy tale about how they want to protect privacy, all so they can continue data collection practices as usual,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Full article available at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/privacy-concerns-limit-online-ads-study-says/?ref=technology
Nonetheless, the 90 companies and organizations surveyed reduced their behavioral advertising, even though they estimated the tracking-based ads were 50 percent more efficient in generating sales than conventional online display ads.
“Privacy fears are definitely having an economic impact,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of the privacy and security research group. The markets are holding back, Mr. Ponemon says, because of the uncertain legal and regulatory environment. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are mulling tighter restrictions on online data collection, disclosure and use.
However, the industry has set forth its efforts in the last year to develop a meaningful self-regulatory program in which advertiser can still incorporate targeted ads, while keeping the consumer informed. "The effort includes public education and technology — a click-on icon — to tell consumers what is happening when they see a targeted ad that uses demographics and behavioral data." (NY Times)
It was also suggested that they include limiting the ability of Web sites and ad networks to use behavioral data to 24 hours after it is collected, and requiring consumers’ permission — an opt-in approach — to hold such data beyond 24 hours.
The groups also say individual privacy rights should include being able to find out who is tracking them and know what information is being disseminated about them.“The online ad lobby is spinning a glossy fairy tale about how they want to protect privacy, all so they can continue data collection practices as usual,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Full article available at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/privacy-concerns-limit-online-ads-study-says/?ref=technology
NJ Principal Tells Parents "Keep Your Kids off of Facebook!"
A NJ principal, Anthony Orsini is telling parents to keep their kids off of social networking sites like Facebook. Orsini is the principal at Benjamin Franklin Middle School and is telling parents that their children have no business spreading personal information on social networking sites. He is quoted on CNN saying:
"It is time for every single member of the [school] Community to take a stand!”
His reasoning behind the mass e-mail to parents is that kids at that age don’t have the intellectual ability to know what to share and what not to share...he has a point. I know that when I was a teenager in high school I wanted the world to know everything about me, and had no idea what danger could come from revealing too much.
I spoke about cyber-bullying in my paper on Friday and this is one of the things Principal Orsini is concerned about. He is worried that students with online profiles will be more susceptible to online predators and bullying from other people at school.
This principal maybe taking some extreme measures to protect his students, but in this technological era it makes sense.
Internet ads revenues continue to rise, old media getting a smaller slice of the pie
From the report of ZenithOptimedia, advertisers are spending more on internet than the magazine in 2009, for the first time in history. With the trend of downsizing in traditional media like newspapers and magazines, the further cut in advertising revenues taken away by new media like video games and internet seems to make it even more worrisome.
ZenithOptimedia reports that “Magazines' share of worldwide ad spending fell to 10.3% in 2009 from 11.6% in 2008 and is expected to fall to 9.6% this year, 9.1% in 2011 and 8.6% in 2012. Radio, which held even at 7.7% last year, is projected to decline to 7.5% this year and 7.3% in 2011 before holding steady again in 2012.” (ZenithOptimedia).
On the contrary, the internet increased its share of global ad spending to 12.6% last year from 10.5% in 2008, and will keep growing—the report predicts that its share will rise up to 13.9% this year, 15.4% next year and 17.1% in 2012. (ZenithOptimedia).
Advertising is considered one crucial revenue sources for print industry, with internet taking a growing share of ads income, the print media would have to think of newer ways to cope. Nevertheless, many print media has already crossed over onto internet by establishing its own news websites, which can provide an additional source of revenue.
To get more information on the statistics of advertising revenues in media, please see here and here.
History in 140 words or less.
Tweet by tweet as people check on status of other, a lot of information is taken for disregard. However, laterly they are likely to be of considerable value to future historians. Many critics believe that they contain more observations, recorded at the same times by more people, than ever preserved in any medium before. Who knew your status would actually make history.
“Twitter is tens of millions of active users. There is no archive with tens of millions of diaries,” said Daniel J. Cohen, an associate professor of history at George Mason University and co-author of a 2006 book, “Digital History.” What’s more, he said, “Twitter is of the moment; it’s where people are the most honest.”
Last month, Twitter acknowledged that would donate its archive of public messages to the Library of Congress with supply it with continuous updates and statuses.
Before transferring it, the company will remove the messages of users who opted to designate their account “protected,” so that only people who obtain their explicit permission can follow them.
"A Twitter user can also elect to use a pseudonym and not share any personally identifying information. Twitter does not add identity tags that match its users to real people.
Each message is accompanied by some tidbits of supplemental information, like the number of followers that the author had at the time and how many users the author was following. While Mr. Cohen said it would be useful for a historian to know who the followers and the followed are, this information is not included in the Tweet itself.
But there’s nothing private about who follows whom among users of Twitter’s unprotected, public accounts. This information is displayed both at Twitter’s own site and in applications developed by third parties whom Twitter welcomes to tap its database". (NY TImes)
The library will embargo messages for six months after their original transmission. If that is not enough to put privacy issues to rest. However, many people on twitter arent aware of their privacy setting. This leaves a lot of room for information that is invalid and as Mr Cohen puts it "useless information"
Nonetheless Mr. Cohen encourages historians to find new tools and methods for mining the “staggeringly large historical record” of Tweets. This will require a different approach, he said, one that lets go of straightforward “anecdotal history.”
However, are we at that age when the quanity of history replace the quality and significance.
“Twitter is tens of millions of active users. There is no archive with tens of millions of diaries,” said Daniel J. Cohen, an associate professor of history at George Mason University and co-author of a 2006 book, “Digital History.” What’s more, he said, “Twitter is of the moment; it’s where people are the most honest.”
Last month, Twitter acknowledged that would donate its archive of public messages to the Library of Congress with supply it with continuous updates and statuses.
Before transferring it, the company will remove the messages of users who opted to designate their account “protected,” so that only people who obtain their explicit permission can follow them.
"A Twitter user can also elect to use a pseudonym and not share any personally identifying information. Twitter does not add identity tags that match its users to real people.
Each message is accompanied by some tidbits of supplemental information, like the number of followers that the author had at the time and how many users the author was following. While Mr. Cohen said it would be useful for a historian to know who the followers and the followed are, this information is not included in the Tweet itself.
But there’s nothing private about who follows whom among users of Twitter’s unprotected, public accounts. This information is displayed both at Twitter’s own site and in applications developed by third parties whom Twitter welcomes to tap its database". (NY TImes)
The library will embargo messages for six months after their original transmission. If that is not enough to put privacy issues to rest. However, many people on twitter arent aware of their privacy setting. This leaves a lot of room for information that is invalid and as Mr Cohen puts it "useless information"
Nonetheless Mr. Cohen encourages historians to find new tools and methods for mining the “staggeringly large historical record” of Tweets. This will require a different approach, he said, one that lets go of straightforward “anecdotal history.”
However, are we at that age when the quanity of history replace the quality and significance.
Court does not approve internet regulation by the FCC
Internet is becoming a major tool of communication channel in contemporary society, but little regulation exists to protect users of the media from potential abuse by network providers.
The F.C.C. was attempting to increase the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and to promote more competition among internet providers through its broadband plan. This month, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced that the Federal Communications Commission “didn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
F.C.C. Chairman Julius Genachowski said an appeal to the court decision is not on the commission’s agenda, but it is considering other options. Now, the F.C.C. may have to rely on Congress to give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access—or, to ignore the court decision altogether.
There is, however, other ways in which F.C.C. could try to convince the court that it is a legitimate regulator for the industry. New York Times editor wrote:
“Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
Many internet users around the United States may have already noticed that only a small number of broadband access providers (in many areas, there is only one provider) are available, making the F.C.C.’s role to step in as a regulatory authority seem furthermore pressing.
To read the entire editorial, please click here.
Anonymous online book reviews = a weapon in the literary battle?
While it is no new news that internet users often can find book reviews posted by other readers online before purchasing a book, it seems rather shocking that book reviews can be used as a tactic by writers to attack other writers in the same genre.
A British author, Rachel Polonsky, discovered that there is a blatantly negative review on her new book “Molotov’s Magic Tavern” on Amazon online bookstore by a commenter named “Historian”. After tracing the same commenter’s comments on other books in the same genre, Polonsky found that this anonymous reviewer had posted other similar, savaging comments to books by other authors. Interestingly enough, she also discovered that this hypercritical “Historian” is unusually laudable to the works by one writer: Orlando Figes.
The writers than started talking to each other and suspected that Figes is himself the true identity behind the obnoxious commentator. This had Figes hiring an attorney threatening to sue Polonsky and others for libel. The events prompted Polonsky to hire an expert in digital forensics, who eventually concluded that the comments did in fact come from Figes’ household.
Online trashing of other people may assume anonymity, but sometimes they are not without real-life consequences. The filing of eLibel lawsuits has a trend of increasing, but oftentimes the court refuses to pursue a complete disclosure of the identity of the anonymous users who made online defamatory comments, making the plaintiff difficult to sue.
Nevertheless, things as subjective as a book review are really a matter of opinion. But when the real world crosses over to the online world, can online comments remain entirely anonymous?
To read this story in full, please click here.
2nd Cir. Allows RIAA "John Doe" Lawsuits
Ever since a federal appeals court ruled the Recording Industry Association of America did not have the power under the DMCA to force ISPs to turn over the names of users it suspected of copyright infringement, the RIAA has resorted to a less McCarthyan approach: "John Doe" lawsuits. Yesterday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the RIAA's new legal process.
Previously, the RIAA ran a mass-subpoena campaign, using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's new provisions to force ISPs to turn over the names of users whose IP addresses had been identified as copyright violators. The copyright holder did not have to show proof of copyright infringement or file a lawsuit in order to issue a subpoena. When Verizon challenged the legality of the RIAA's strategy, the EFF filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing "that every Internet user’s privacy was at risk if anyone claiming to be a copyright owner could, without ever appearing before a judge, force an ISP to hand over the names and addresses of its customers."
Now, at least, the RIAA has to file a lawsuit before ISPs may be required to turn over users' names. Defendants may challenge the subpoenas and the new ruling "injected judicial oversight into the process."
Still, the EFF estimates the lawsuits, which target individuals and often result in massive out-of-court settlements, have not deterred file-sharers in the United States.
Previously, the RIAA ran a mass-subpoena campaign, using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's new provisions to force ISPs to turn over the names of users whose IP addresses had been identified as copyright violators. The copyright holder did not have to show proof of copyright infringement or file a lawsuit in order to issue a subpoena. When Verizon challenged the legality of the RIAA's strategy, the EFF filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing "that every Internet user’s privacy was at risk if anyone claiming to be a copyright owner could, without ever appearing before a judge, force an ISP to hand over the names and addresses of its customers."
Now, at least, the RIAA has to file a lawsuit before ISPs may be required to turn over users' names. Defendants may challenge the subpoenas and the new ruling "injected judicial oversight into the process."
Still, the EFF estimates the lawsuits, which target individuals and often result in massive out-of-court settlements, have not deterred file-sharers in the United States.
Google involved in a legal battle? Never!
Apple has decided to shut down its music-streaming program Lala, making an announcement yesterday on the homepage that the service would end May 31. Lala has been a factor in the ongoing battle between Apple and Google (yes, Google is involved in another battle), since Lala was a partner with Google Music.
Therefore, shutting down Lala can affect more than just the users, who will be credited the amount they spent on Lala through iTunes. Lala is only one piece of the puzzle, though. Apple and Google have been competing in the new technology market for years. In the field of smartphones, Apple's iPhone hold a lead over Google-based Android, but the HTC brand has been gaining. Similarly, Apple released the iPad as the originator of tablet PCs, but rumor has it that Google will be releasing a model by the end of 2010.
With Apple shutting down Lala, the question that remains is whether Google will replace Lala as a partner or if Apple has reached another agreement with Google to keep providing music for searches through another outlet, such as iTunes. With Google as a player in this case, we may never know. They certainly keep us on our toes.
Therefore, shutting down Lala can affect more than just the users, who will be credited the amount they spent on Lala through iTunes. Lala is only one piece of the puzzle, though. Apple and Google have been competing in the new technology market for years. In the field of smartphones, Apple's iPhone hold a lead over Google-based Android, but the HTC brand has been gaining. Similarly, Apple released the iPad as the originator of tablet PCs, but rumor has it that Google will be releasing a model by the end of 2010.
With Apple shutting down Lala, the question that remains is whether Google will replace Lala as a partner or if Apple has reached another agreement with Google to keep providing music for searches through another outlet, such as iTunes. With Google as a player in this case, we may never know. They certainly keep us on our toes.
Where's my money, Lala?
(Note: What a coincidence! Alex and I both did the same story.)
Apple is shutting down Lala.com, the popular streaming music website, which famously appears at the top of Google search results for most popular music titles. Google users could, until recently, stream just about any song for free via Lala.com's integrated search results. Now, with Lala's closure imminent, many wonder whether Google will find a new music partner or team up with Apple, which is expected to integrate Lala's technology into its iTunes music service. Either way, the rivalry between Apple and Google is heating up.
The use of Lala.com's streaming audio technology brings up a contentious DMCA debate from several years ago over music royalties and online broadcasting. Royalties, which are fees that media outlets pay to artists and copyright holders for use of a particular song, make up a significant portion of artists' and record labels' revnues. When an FM radio station plays a song, the station must pay "publishing royalties" to the song's copyright holders. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, Internet radio stations have to pay publishing royalties and performance royalties. Critics suggested the record labels had persuaded Congress to impose extra royalties in order to discourage smaller, independent streaming music sites from playing their music for little to no cost.
However, online performance royalties, which are now based on broadcasters' revenues, often never actually make it to the artists themselves--I'm still waiting for my checks!
Apple is shutting down Lala.com, the popular streaming music website, which famously appears at the top of Google search results for most popular music titles. Google users could, until recently, stream just about any song for free via Lala.com's integrated search results. Now, with Lala's closure imminent, many wonder whether Google will find a new music partner or team up with Apple, which is expected to integrate Lala's technology into its iTunes music service. Either way, the rivalry between Apple and Google is heating up.
The use of Lala.com's streaming audio technology brings up a contentious DMCA debate from several years ago over music royalties and online broadcasting. Royalties, which are fees that media outlets pay to artists and copyright holders for use of a particular song, make up a significant portion of artists' and record labels' revnues. When an FM radio station plays a song, the station must pay "publishing royalties" to the song's copyright holders. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, Internet radio stations have to pay publishing royalties and performance royalties. Critics suggested the record labels had persuaded Congress to impose extra royalties in order to discourage smaller, independent streaming music sites from playing their music for little to no cost.
However, online performance royalties, which are now based on broadcasters' revenues, often never actually make it to the artists themselves--I'm still waiting for my checks!
Facebook CEO "doesn't believe in privacy"
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee. Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't believe in it."
Nick Bilton, a blogger for The New York Times' "Bits," let this tidbit slip on Twitter Wednesday, and the remark by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making waves among privacy advocates and average Internet users alike. With Facebook and other social media occupying a greater space online (indeed, Facebook accounts for even more Web traffic than the gargantuan Google search), users are becoming increasingly aware of their rights to information they upload. Facebook, it seems, is manipulating users' personal information with reckless abandon, making data on its users available to corporations, advertisers, and who knows what else, for a tidy profit.
"On Tuesday, four Senators asked the company to only push data to third-parties if users agree to it," WIRED News reported, referring to "a so-called “opt-in” that social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz eschew since it radically cuts down on participation and thus revenues."
However, in light of Zuckerberg's candid revelation, one can only assume Facebook will continue to become less private, but what are the effects of the commodification of personal information? Only time will tell, though Facebook and the concept of online identity might change the way society views the very idea of identity and the self.
Nick Bilton, a blogger for The New York Times' "Bits," let this tidbit slip on Twitter Wednesday, and the remark by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making waves among privacy advocates and average Internet users alike. With Facebook and other social media occupying a greater space online (indeed, Facebook accounts for even more Web traffic than the gargantuan Google search), users are becoming increasingly aware of their rights to information they upload. Facebook, it seems, is manipulating users' personal information with reckless abandon, making data on its users available to corporations, advertisers, and who knows what else, for a tidy profit.
"On Tuesday, four Senators asked the company to only push data to third-parties if users agree to it," WIRED News reported, referring to "a so-called “opt-in” that social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz eschew since it radically cuts down on participation and thus revenues."
However, in light of Zuckerberg's candid revelation, one can only assume Facebook will continue to become less private, but what are the effects of the commodification of personal information? Only time will tell, though Facebook and the concept of online identity might change the way society views the very idea of identity and the self.
Is Google's run over? Yahoo may think so
Carol Bartz, head of Yahoo, reportedly told BBC News that Google would be in trouble if it did not diversify its business. According to Bartz, Google would have to "do a lot more than search" and should "grow a company the size of Yahoo every year" in order to compete in the market.
Yahoo competes with Google in the search engine market, but Yahoo has only 17 percent of the U.S. market while Google has 65 percent. Bartz claimed, however, that Google is going to have a problem because they are only known for search. She said it is only half of Yahoo's business, but it is 99.9 percent of Google's business, and that they would have to break out into other markets to remain successful.
These comments come at an interesting time. If you recall, Google is in the midst of a lawsuit surrounding one of their biggest and most innovative Internet ventures: Google Books. Google has also spawned Gmail, Google Maps and Google News. Google is also the supporter of Blogger blogging service and Picasa photo-sharing service. Google seems to be the definition of a search site branching out into other markets.
With Google having success with so many other ventures, what sparked Bartz's comments? She did say in a press conference that she expected Facebook and Google to surpass Yahoo in the amount of time spent on the site. Perhaps this is a case of fighting fire with fire, or playing dirty.
As for Google, with such major launches like Google Books and the rumored Google TV, I don't believe they'll be struggling to make a name in the market anytime soon.
Yahoo competes with Google in the search engine market, but Yahoo has only 17 percent of the U.S. market while Google has 65 percent. Bartz claimed, however, that Google is going to have a problem because they are only known for search. She said it is only half of Yahoo's business, but it is 99.9 percent of Google's business, and that they would have to break out into other markets to remain successful.
These comments come at an interesting time. If you recall, Google is in the midst of a lawsuit surrounding one of their biggest and most innovative Internet ventures: Google Books. Google has also spawned Gmail, Google Maps and Google News. Google is also the supporter of Blogger blogging service and Picasa photo-sharing service. Google seems to be the definition of a search site branching out into other markets.
With Google having success with so many other ventures, what sparked Bartz's comments? She did say in a press conference that she expected Facebook and Google to surpass Yahoo in the amount of time spent on the site. Perhaps this is a case of fighting fire with fire, or playing dirty.
As for Google, with such major launches like Google Books and the rumored Google TV, I don't believe they'll be struggling to make a name in the market anytime soon.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Is Facebook going to Washington?
Following Facebook's f8 conference announcement about the new connections with other Web sites which comes with an opt-out rather than an opt-in option, politicians have been speaking out against the development.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) objected the third-party sharing, urging the Federal Trade Commission to address the issue of "social network privacy." His main concern was that sites would be misleading in their privacy statements, not clearly stating the extent of third-party information sharing to users. He wants sites to fully disclose their information-sharing policies and procedures to ensure no information is being shared without permission.
Schumer also teamed up with three other Democratic senators on an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to express similar concerns. Such political involvement could mean Facebook's new policies are sending it to D.C. Once third-party sharing comes into the mix, politicians start to take notice, and it is Facebook's new procedure that could be bringing it down again.
Ironically, I came across this article after presenting my paper on Facebook and Internet privacy, and it is eerily fitting. Just another example of how our information is traced online and personal information cannot be escaped. As for any impending legal battles, this is a case we'll have to follow. As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, this could be the next major controversy for Facebook, and it seems it's come out of the gate running.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) objected the third-party sharing, urging the Federal Trade Commission to address the issue of "social network privacy." His main concern was that sites would be misleading in their privacy statements, not clearly stating the extent of third-party information sharing to users. He wants sites to fully disclose their information-sharing policies and procedures to ensure no information is being shared without permission.
Schumer also teamed up with three other Democratic senators on an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to express similar concerns. Such political involvement could mean Facebook's new policies are sending it to D.C. Once third-party sharing comes into the mix, politicians start to take notice, and it is Facebook's new procedure that could be bringing it down again.
Ironically, I came across this article after presenting my paper on Facebook and Internet privacy, and it is eerily fitting. Just another example of how our information is traced online and personal information cannot be escaped. As for any impending legal battles, this is a case we'll have to follow. As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, this could be the next major controversy for Facebook, and it seems it's come out of the gate running.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
An Unlikely Story: Follow-Up to the Gizmodo Story
As I reported in earlier posts, the technology blog Gizmodo is under heat from Apple, Inc. and California law after it posted pictures and videos of a "fourth generation" iPhone that they said they purchased from a patron of a California bar after it was found there.
Now, it looks like that story was a lie-- Businessweek.com reported April 29 that prosecutors are now saying Apple reported the phone as stolen, adding a deeper legal layer to an already complicated case.
The bar patron who found the phone has been identified as 21-year-old Brian Hogan. Hogan said that he was handed the phone by another patron who found it on a barstool, and then immediately left. Hogan asked other patrons around him if the phone was theirs, and when they all said no, he tried to check Facebook.com on it, and then the phone shut off and would not work again. Hogan said he would call Apple product help line AppleCare to report the missing phone, but ended up giving it to Gizmodo instead. Investigators reported that Hogan thought Gizmodo was reviewing the phone, and he sought-- and received-- compensation for it. Hogan believed, and Gizmodo reassured him, that the phone was allowed to be sold to the technology press.
Although I mentioned the Josh Wolf case before, I did not mention that the case could be approached from an angle that avoids the California shield law that Gizmodo could potentially use like the Wolf case did. Because the evidence Wolf may have had that involved the federally funded San Francisco Police Department, the federal government was able to issue the subpoena and carry out the investigation, and federal law overrode the California shield law. Similarly, for Gizmodo, it is possible that Apple will avoid the California shield law completely by focusing on the theft aspect of the case, which may be a strong argument for them. Gizmodo could still seek first amendment rights and seek protection under the California shield law, but if a different angle is pursued, it is possible that the issue can be bypassed.
--Sarah Morrison
Jon Stewart calls out Apple (follow up on Sarah's post)
Sarah posted a really interesting blog about the editor of Gizmodo's house being searched by police after he posted pictures of Apple's iPhone prototype on his website. Well this behavior by Apple has got a lot of people up in arms about what their company is really about. Most importantly it has caught the attention of a very influential guy, Jon Stewart. He ranted about Apple's actions on his nightly faux-news cast "The Daily Show". (Fast forward to minute 5:15 to get right into his "conversation" with Steve Jobs and Apple.)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Appholes | ||||
| ||||
(Video credited to Comedy Central)
Apple started out as an underdog and became the super-power it is today by having faithful customers who believed in their product, these kind of actions are kind of...scary. What monster have we created here? Hopefully this is just a one time thing and Apple will realize the damage they have done to their image and maybe they can begin to repair it. Maybe by releasing an iPhone for Verizon? Hey, just a suggestion.....
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
UPDATE: Gizmodo Editor's Computers Seized by Police
InformationWeek reported April 27 that California law enforcement seized computer used by the blog Gizmodo's editor, Jason Chen, on Friday, hoping to find evidence of a stolen new version of the iPhone that the blog released detailed pictures, videos, and demonstrations of.
Gizmodo said that they paid $5,000 for an iPhone that someone found "lost in a bar." They released the specifics of the device in a post last week, and Chen was convinced that he had found the new iPhone, disguised in a case to make it look like the current 3G model. Apple sued under Section 485 of California law, which says that if someone knowingly receives stolen property, it is as if he stole the material himself and is also guilty of theft.
However, InformtionWeek reports that Gizmodo may seek protection under California shield law, maintaining that the information was gathered for journalistic purposes and cannot be subpoenaed. Chen knew that his computers may be seized (the seizing of the computers would be equivalent to the subpoena of information). In advance, Gaby Darbyshire, the COO of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, explained in a letter on Gawker that online journalists had successfully combated subpoenas before. Chen could have a shot-- in the case of Joshua Wolf, the subpoenaed blogger who served the longest jail sentence of any journalist in U.S. history for not complying, brought the issue of bloggers and the shield law to light, and Chen hopes that this will reflect in his favor.
--Sarah Morrison
Monday, April 26, 2010
Social Media Equivalent to Drugs.
A new study conducted by the University of Maryland has found that many students are hooked on social media and cellphones are similar to the addictions associated with drugs and alcohol. Many student described the withdrawals from these sites in terms similar to those used by drug and alcohol addicts.
The study from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, "24 Hours: Unplugged," asked 200 students on the campus to give up all media for a full day and blog on private Web sites about their experience. Student reaction showed addiction like withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, misery, and being jittery. For these students these social sites were an extension of them and admitted that they addicted to media.
Zack Whittaker, a blogger for ZDNet, called the research methodology "pretty rock solid" but takes issue with the way the results have been interpreted by the researchers. Mr. Whittaker said in a blog post that he felt that today "the term 'addiction' is bandied around without thought or conviction.
"I defend to the highest possible level that today's youth are not addicted to social media and networking, the Web, and online media," Mr. Whittaker wrote. "We do spend far more time on Facebook and accessing the Web for leisure use and socializing, but that is part of the natural progression of tertiary, non compulsory education socialization."
This article is interesting because new media such as social networking sites are being associated as being a drug and addictive. However, just as the government presents laws against drugs its usage, one can conclude that with the new ACTA laws the government is similarly trying to restrict the usage of the new media.
The study from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, "24 Hours: Unplugged," asked 200 students on the campus to give up all media for a full day and blog on private Web sites about their experience. Student reaction showed addiction like withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, misery, and being jittery. For these students these social sites were an extension of them and admitted that they addicted to media.
Zack Whittaker, a blogger for ZDNet, called the research methodology "pretty rock solid" but takes issue with the way the results have been interpreted by the researchers. Mr. Whittaker said in a blog post that he felt that today "the term 'addiction' is bandied around without thought or conviction.
"I defend to the highest possible level that today's youth are not addicted to social media and networking, the Web, and online media," Mr. Whittaker wrote. "We do spend far more time on Facebook and accessing the Web for leisure use and socializing, but that is part of the natural progression of tertiary, non compulsory education socialization."
This article is interesting because new media such as social networking sites are being associated as being a drug and addictive. However, just as the government presents laws against drugs its usage, one can conclude that with the new ACTA laws the government is similarly trying to restrict the usage of the new media.
Supreme Court to hear Calif. video game case
The Supreme Court will take the case of a California law banning the sale of certain "excessively violent" video games to children, according to CNN.com. The bill, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed, outlawed the sale or rental of video games in which the player "is given a choice of 'killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being' in offensive ways" to minors. Violators would face a maximum of $1,000 in fines under the controversial law.
After Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill in 2005, the video game industry filed suit in California's federal appeals court and the court issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law even before it took effect.
Now, the Supreme Court will finally hear the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants (08-1448). The state claims it has a "legal obligation to protect children" from the disturbing violent images found in video games; however, video game developers maintain its current ratings system is adequate and parents can effectively choose which games are appropriate for children.
The state also said parents across California are complaining because the current guidelines do not prevent minors from playing games that contain graphic portrayals of murder and rape, which may have serious psychological effects on young people. Video game ratings, similar to movie ratings, are voluntarily industry-issued and are intended to give consumers an idea of the game's intended audience.
The video game industry says the law would amount to censorship, "using 'community standards' to evaluate artistic and commercial content."
Do violent video games have First Amendment protection when they fall into the hands of children?
After Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill in 2005, the video game industry filed suit in California's federal appeals court and the court issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law even before it took effect.
Now, the Supreme Court will finally hear the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants (08-1448). The state claims it has a "legal obligation to protect children" from the disturbing violent images found in video games; however, video game developers maintain its current ratings system is adequate and parents can effectively choose which games are appropriate for children.
The state also said parents across California are complaining because the current guidelines do not prevent minors from playing games that contain graphic portrayals of murder and rape, which may have serious psychological effects on young people. Video game ratings, similar to movie ratings, are voluntarily industry-issued and are intended to give consumers an idea of the game's intended audience.
The video game industry says the law would amount to censorship, "using 'community standards' to evaluate artistic and commercial content."
Do violent video games have First Amendment protection when they fall into the hands of children?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
How about them apples?
Technology lovers REALLY love getting their hands on Apple products before they hit the market!
As the old saying goes: history repeats itself.
Gizmodo leaked an entire set of demonstrations, photos, and videos of a prototype phone, which it purchased for $5,000 from an unknown seller, and Apple is now suing under section 485 of California law. The law states that if stolen property is not rightfully returned to its owner and then knowingly received as stolen property is considered thievery.
According to Gizmodo, the unknown source tried to contact Apple about the phone, which they claimed was "lost in a bar" and ended up in their possession. However, it is possible that the blog can be found guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property. Gizmodo said that it has yet to be contacted by law enforcement.
Stay tuned...
--Sarah Morrison
Friday, April 23, 2010
South Park Censored for Safety
Comedy Central censored there Wednesday’s (April 21) episode, which was a continuation of last week's, and it was a depiction of Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.
South Park was given a warning from a radical Muslim website, revolutionmuslim.com. Comedy Central confirmed to FoxNews.com it censored the show, and the episode was not available on the website either.
Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to raise awareness.
The posting included “the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park, which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.” Amrikee said the photograph of van Gogh was meant to “explain the severity” of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting read. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome. They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
Jon Stewart commented on the incident on his show yesterday, Thursday 22. According to The Examiner, Stewart’s show “and others have made a common practice of ridiculing nearly every major religion and belief systems. Yet, it seems the network felt the need to censor in this case over concerns of violence.”
Stewart claimed, “the censorship was a decision Comedy Central made, I think, as a way to protect our employees from what they believe was any possible harmful repercussions to them.”
He went on to criticize “the group that posted the threat on its Web site, saying your type of hatred and intolerance, that's the enemy.”
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Clearly, according to the information given above, there was no threat given on the part of any group. But a warning by an individual. An individual whose name originally was Zachary Adam Chesser. According to an article in FOX News, Chesser seemed somewhat disturbing to some of his classmates. Years later in college, he converted to Islam. So this means, Chesser, as the article claims, had some troubling traits since he was in high school. His “disturbing” attitude was not created when he converted; rather, it was there all the time. So, there is something clearly wrong with this picture. What if Chesser never converted to Islam, would the story seem different? The articles about the censorship on Comedy Central, declare that the post was not a threat, but a warning. A warning to what might happen to Parker and Stone. Take this for example, during the Civil Rights movement; no doubt, there was racism in America. So much cruelty there was towards Blacks in this country for many years. What would have happened if they were fearful of protesting? Would the Civil Rights movement have happened? Indeed, they were threatened on and before the Civil Rights movement. Anything could have happened to them. Should our freedom of speech be threatened by what we fear is going to happen? Clearly, Comedy Central pokes fun at many faiths, but is that even right? Does that not only continue the racism, stereotyping, and bigotry in this country?
So how do we determine who is right in this case?
For more info on this article visit: MYFOXNY
---MONA
South Park was given a warning from a radical Muslim website, revolutionmuslim.com. Comedy Central confirmed to FoxNews.com it censored the show, and the episode was not available on the website either.
Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to raise awareness.
The posting included “the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park, which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.” Amrikee said the photograph of van Gogh was meant to “explain the severity” of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting read. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome. They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
Jon Stewart commented on the incident on his show yesterday, Thursday 22. According to The Examiner, Stewart’s show “and others have made a common practice of ridiculing nearly every major religion and belief systems. Yet, it seems the network felt the need to censor in this case over concerns of violence.”
Stewart claimed, “the censorship was a decision Comedy Central made, I think, as a way to protect our employees from what they believe was any possible harmful repercussions to them.”
He went on to criticize “the group that posted the threat on its Web site, saying your type of hatred and intolerance, that's the enemy.”
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Clearly, according to the information given above, there was no threat given on the part of any group. But a warning by an individual. An individual whose name originally was Zachary Adam Chesser. According to an article in FOX News, Chesser seemed somewhat disturbing to some of his classmates. Years later in college, he converted to Islam. So this means, Chesser, as the article claims, had some troubling traits since he was in high school. His “disturbing” attitude was not created when he converted; rather, it was there all the time. So, there is something clearly wrong with this picture. What if Chesser never converted to Islam, would the story seem different? The articles about the censorship on Comedy Central, declare that the post was not a threat, but a warning. A warning to what might happen to Parker and Stone. Take this for example, during the Civil Rights movement; no doubt, there was racism in America. So much cruelty there was towards Blacks in this country for many years. What would have happened if they were fearful of protesting? Would the Civil Rights movement have happened? Indeed, they were threatened on and before the Civil Rights movement. Anything could have happened to them. Should our freedom of speech be threatened by what we fear is going to happen? Clearly, Comedy Central pokes fun at many faiths, but is that even right? Does that not only continue the racism, stereotyping, and bigotry in this country?
So how do we determine who is right in this case?
For more info on this article visit: MYFOXNY
---MONA
Thursday, April 22, 2010
ACTA Developments May Hurt ISPs, Tech Companies
The current version of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was released yesterday, under mounting criticism that the negotiations have been to secretive up until this point, according to the Associated Press. The treaty, which involves the United States and 12 other countries, has been in the making since 2007. Last week another round of talks were concluded in New Zealand. The treaty aims to “crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft, and would cover everything from fake pharmaceuticals to online piracy of music and movies,” according to abc.com. However, the article further points out that ISPs and other intermediary internet companies may be legally liable for infringing content in ways they have not in the past. Every nation that signs the treaty is expected to bring its laws into compliance. Whereas the United States, under its current Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires the provider to remove infringing content, it is not subject to monetary damages. Whether this will be the case under ACTA is still unclear, and ISPs and other technology companies are not pleased.
An interesting point of view on how this will play out suggests that a commercial approach, linking ISPs with content providers could then render piracy a moot point. This would protect the technology companies from liability on infringement issues. The full argument can be found here, at computerworld.com.
An interesting point of view on how this will play out suggests that a commercial approach, linking ISPs with content providers could then render piracy a moot point. This would protect the technology companies from liability on infringement issues. The full argument can be found here, at computerworld.com.
Hitler Parodies on YouTube: Fair Use or Copyright Infringement?
Yesterday, MSNBC.com reported that YouTube began removing videos that parody a scene from the German movie, “Der Untergang” (US Title: Downfall). According to this report, the production company, Constantin, has removed the movies due to copyright infringement. YouTube has a Content I.D. System which allows the owners of copyrighted materials to remove content on its site that contains the copyrighted materials. The report noted, however, that the clips, which add humorous English subtitles to the scene in which Hitler realizes Germany has lost the war, potentially consitute fair use. The film is in German, but the English subtitles parody the intensity of the scene. One of the videos title helps explain the sense of parody: “Hitler finds out Tony Romo dumped by Jessica Simpson.” Perhaps, for YouTube, it is easier to simply follow its policy than to worry about the popularity and fair use value of the clips.
When social media takes over
According to GigaOM and the New York Times, at yesterday's f8 conference, Facebook launched its plans to make the whole Web social. That's right, folk, social media is taking over the world.
Part of this plan has already been made public and become fairly commonplace in the technology world. Facebook Connect, which allows you to log into various sites using your Facebook username and connects information back to your newsfeed, reached 100 million users in its first 15 months according to the Times.
It outlined three key components to making this new social expansion become reality:
Part of this plan has already been made public and become fairly commonplace in the technology world. Facebook Connect, which allows you to log into various sites using your Facebook username and connects information back to your newsfeed, reached 100 million users in its first 15 months according to the Times.
It outlined three key components to making this new social expansion become reality:
- "Social plugins" create "instant personalization" on participating partner sites. When you log onto a Web site, even for the first time, this widget lets you know what friends have visited that site and makes recommendations to you based on that information.
- The "open graph protocol" brings the Facebook "like" button to the World Wide Web. Users can "like" pretty much anything, and that information will be stored to help personalize your Web experience. For instance, the article uses the example of IMDB, one of the partner sites: if you "like" a particular movie, that movie will go into your favorites on the site, and other people can view information about it by looking at what you have "liked."
- "Graph API" will create a sort of cyber-newsfeed, giving Web sites access to streaming updates whenever a user creates a connection or writes on a wall. Along with this, Facebook will be adopting the open authentication protocol, OAuth, according to the article.
GigaOM's Liz Gannes recognizes that a major problem with this new system is that people are not used to this integration of information. "Users aren’t accustomed to instantly personal services, and we have no idea where that personal information is coming from," she said in her article. She does mention that there is an option to opt-out of this information sharing, which for many privacy-concerned users could be a saving grace.
Naturally, there are privacy implications out the ears surrounding this kind of Internet-wide connection, but Gannes makes a very good point: Every major change created by Facebook has been vehemently protested by at least one side, only to eventually find its place in society. Sometimes that meant the nay-sayers subsided and allowed it to become the next great protocol; other times that meant said application fell into oblivion. Regardless, this is just the next big Facebook advancement, and a few month's time will tell whether it will revolutionize Internet use as we know it, or if it will become yet another fleeting cyber-memory.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Follow-Up to School Webcam
Follow-up of my first post:
Here is a link to a video that was on Yahoo today from ABC News about the student in Pennsylvania whose school-supplied laptop took pictures of him without his knowledge. I thought it was interesting how this story is just now being talked about on TV news. Watch if you're interested.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Kansas Govenor Signs Shield Law
As we learned in lecture, only thirty-seven states have shield laws that offer reporters some statutory law protection to conceal their confidential sources or to testify. As of April 15, 2010, Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson signed the thirty-eighth state shield law.
When the Senate gave permission to pass the shield law, back on March 23, 2010, it explains who is covered under the law. “The bill defines who is a journalist and therefore covered by the proposed law. The definition includes not only traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television but an online journal regularly involved in reporting and disseminating information to the public.”
According to the article, Parkinson takes a very strong desire to protect the rights of Kansas journalists. Doug Anstaett, executive director of Kansas Press Association said, “The law will encourage reporters and their sources to step forward to uncover abuse and corruption in government.”
It will go into effect July 1, 2010 when published in the Kansas Statute Book.
To review this article: The Wichita Eagle/Kansas.com
---MONA
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)