Citadel of the Blogs The Inbox of the Internet (really)

I have been quiet because I am busy with a new job and a new baby! I am also thinking of starting to blog about my reflections on life moreso than my reflections about the Internet — but to do that requires time for which, please see my first sentence. LOL.

Anyway, a quick blog today to point out that despite Facebook’s claim that it now offers you greater privacy protection , I counter-claim that Facebook “poking and messaging” now gives you less privacy protection — and worse, Facebook didn’t inform its users about this!

First the standard: to understand my point take a look at Google’s privacy policy. At the bottom of the page (under “Changes to this policy”), it says “Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time. We will not reduce your rights under this Policy without your explicit consent, and we expect most such changes will be minor.” [emphasis mine]

Now I don’t know about you, but I find such claims reassuring. And certainly that is their point, i.e. to reassure the client that despite minor or major changes to privacy, Google will not “reduce” your privacy rights.

Now Facebook has recently changed its privacy options in a major way. However, it has reduced our privacy options when poking or messaging others. Before, you could specify exactly which information on your profile the other individual could see. Currently, however, Facebook does not appear to give you any options any longer! It just says in the Facebook FAQ the other individual can see your Basic Info, Personal Info, Work Info and Education Info.

I find this surprising since I routinely de-selected my education and work information because this can provide a lot of contextual information about me. In my case, it may not matter too greatly but if someone didn’t want to reveal the location where they worked, for instance, they had an option to de-select this. Now they don’t. I call this a “reduction” of your privacy rights!

So this led me to investigate what claims Facebook makes when it changes its privacy policy. Not surprisingly, there is no reassuring claim such as Google. Here is what it says in full:

“We reserve the right to change our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use at any time. Non-material changes and clarifications will take effect immediately, and material changes will take effect within 30 days of their posting on this site. If we make changes, we will post them and will indicate at the top of this page the policy’s new effective date. If we make material changes to this policy, we will notify you here, by email, or through notice on our home page. We encourage you to refer to this policy on an ongoing basis so that you understand our current privacy policy. Unless stated otherwise, our current privacy policy applies to all information that we have about you and your account.”

So I ask you, which privacy policy do you prefer?

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s office has an article about Facebook not being so privacy protective since you can impersonate different user groups (e.g. professor can pretend to be student, etc.). But so far as I can tell, no one has mentioned the reduced privacy rights of poking and messaging.

And frankly, I doubt anyone but me would notice this since I actually used the functionality — and that scares me since Facebook has soooo many users.

Hilarious: apparently, some droll individuals consider that it is actually rude to fall asleepwhile others are singing karaoke! whowoulddathunk it?!

[look how far down on the list it appears! LOL.]

Interesting article from the Federal Access to Information Commissioner on the the Manley Report

While it may be explicable, if not laudable, for any government to want to withhold bad news, it is difficult to understand why even good news is not being released. Surely the fact that Canada decided not to turn over any more detainees to the local authorities in Afghanistan, thereby removing the risk of them being tortured, was good news. If even good news is not disseminated, you cannot blame Canadians for wondering how much bad news might be lurking in government records, waiting to be uncovered. It is true that the government should not reveal any information that could bring harm to those who serve in Afghanistan. But if the government’s position is that everything to do with detainees, and much of what pertains to Afghanistan, is a security matter and is secret by definition, then the Access to Information Act recognizes the importance of protecting certain information and contains exemptions that can be used. The role of my office is to ensure that those exemptions are being applied appropriately.

Love this quote criticizing the “old folks’” condescension toward the “young folks”: “You didn’t behave like that because nobody gave you the option.”

Clay Shirky, a 42-year-old professor of new media at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, who has studied these phenomena since 1993, has a theory about that response. “Whenever young people are allowed to indulge in something old people are not allowed to, it makes us bitter. What did we have? The mall and the parking lot of the 7-Eleven? It sucked to grow up when we did! And we’re mad about it now.” People are always eager to believe that their behavior is a matter of morality, not chronology, Shirky argues. “You didn’t behave like that because nobody gave you the option.”

great show of fast food glossy advertisements versus the actual picture of what you get!

via accidentalhedonist.com