Adriana Lukas's Library tagged legal → View Popular, Search in Google

Julian Assange didn't leak anything--he can't, because he didn't have access to classified documents. Someone (or someones) who did have such access leaked those documents to Assange's WikiLeaks, which, as a journalistic organization, made them available to the world, both directly and through other media partners.

This distinction, which is widely ignored in commentary on WikiLeaks, is actually quite important, because the ethical obligations of a government official with a security clearance are quite different from those of a media outlet.
To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it's quite dangerous to journalists in general. If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he's published classified documents he's received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble

Dec

2010

US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship | Techdirt

www.techdirt.com/...ound-internet-censorship.shtml

- Preview

wikileaks US censorship internet legal

Nov

2010

How Apple’s Closed Ways Could Land It Into Antitrust Trouble

techcrunch.com/...apple-antitrust

- Preview

closed apple anti-competitive monopoly legal techcrunch

Sep

2010

The "legal blackmail" business: inside a P2P settlement factory

gruesome stuff. Almost as gruesome as pr0n movie titles

arstechnica.com/...-settlement-letter-factory.ars

- Preview

legal blackmail business p2p copyright

Jul

2010

IAB Tells Congress Privacy Bills May Harm Business and Consumers

www.iab.net/...1296039

- Preview

congress privacy IAB advertising vrm industry business legal

Jul

2010

And Now Three Questions For Paul Ceglia -- The Man Who Says He Owns 84% Of Facebook

good analysis in the post and especially in the comment by 'Legal Genius'.

www.businessinsider.com/-he-owns-84-of-facebook-2010-7

- Preview

facebook zuckerberg legal ownership

May

2010

'Act Now, Apologize Later': Will Users 'Friend' Facebook's Latest Intrusion on Privacy? - Knowledge@Wharton

level headed analysis of FB's 'war on privacy' and what can be done about it. It's remarkable how the fundamental point about privacy is constantly overlooked or ignored. That (level of) privacy is determined by the individual trying to protected, it's part of autonomy and identity. It is not a set of settings determined by a someone else. This is probably a result of the web having become a set of superplatforms i.e. silos, so the idea that the user can determine something is no longer viable...
At best FB is the testing ground for the lower common denominator of privacy tolerance or threshold. Not good enough.

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm

- Preview

wharton facebook privacy autonomy silos protest legal

Experts at Wharton say that despite vocal opposition, Facebook is increasingly defining the parameters of online privacy through new features and its ever-changing policies. "Facebook's approach is to 'act now, apologize later,'" notes Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Kevin Werbach. "It has repeatedly pushed the envelope on privacy, sometimes clearly going too far." This time, will the company ultimately face a backlash from users and regulators?
Facebook's Open Graph approach features plugins that can be included on any site so users can "like" or recommend content, and personal data is controlled by Facebook and not shared with the partner site. However, a user's recommendations show up as public information on their Facebook profiles. Users can change their privacy settings to determine which recommendations are visible. Nonetheless, critics such as privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say Facebook makes it hard for users to restrict the information they share.
9 more annotation(s)...
- Facebook has been able to push features and change privacy settings without much impact on the site's meteoric growth. While some bloggers and commentators closed their Facebook accounts in response to the recent changes, Facebook's continued expansion makes it unlikely these protests will have much impact on the company. "It's doubtful whether a user boycott would be successful," notes Kendall Whitehouse, director of new media at Wharton. "If you managed to get a million people to close their accounts -- which would be quite a feat -- that only represents one-quarter of one percent of Facebook's user base" and would be unlikely to compel the company to change direction, he says.
- there is a cost to users when it comes to all of these privacy changes and new features: The time that it takes people to understand what changed and how it affects them.
- "The danger for Facebook is that it might become the next MySpace," he notes, adding that while MySpace still commands a large audience, the site isn't as attractive to many corporate and enterprise customers as Facebook or Twitter. MySpace is often eschewed as a place to promote major brands, "unless you're a musician or a pop culture film,"
- "The challenge with online privacy is that people care very deeply about it, but have a difficult time articulating where to draw the lines," Werbach says. "It's difficult to set rules for services that no one has experience with over time and at scale. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, many domains that were once private become public. On the other hand, that can't mean that the deep human values associated with privacy should be abandoned."
- Facebook "now discloses personal information to the public that Facebook users previously restricted ... and now discloses personal information to third parties that Facebook users previously did not make available," the groups said in their complaint. "These changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy and contradict Facebook's own representations."
- "From my perspective, Facebook cares a great deal about privacy, but it thinks about it differently than most privacy experts. Facebook doesn't start with privacy principles; it tests concrete user experiences on real users."
- "People have been acclimated to sharing more and more information," says Hsu. "It's a change in mentality that's provocative and problematic as privacy is redefined."
  - Adriana Lukas on 2010-05-27
    SOME people, by no means all. This is really annoying - just because a few (even a lot) of people whose attitude to privacy is lax, doesn't mean that suddenly social parameters of privacy or the value of privacy should be considered shifted. And even if FB was representative of the privacy tolerance shift in the mainstream, whatever happened to individual autonomy and those on the 'edges'?
  Add Sticky Note
- The perception of control is important, however. "When I talk with my students about Facebook and privacy, they often come back to the issues of control and community," says Werbach. "As long as they feel they have control over their information, they are comfortable sharing it. And they think about Facebook as a distinct environment that largely overlaps with their physical communities such as the university and their families. Taking features such as 'likes' out to the public Internet breaks that 'magic circle.'"
- For now, Facebook has not indicated how it plans to use any data collected through the Open Graph.

1 - 20 of 64 Next › Last »

Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

legal

Related Tags

Top Contributors

Click in to find related links.

Groups interested in legal

Sessions and kimball

Members (1)

bookmarks (316)
Ad4dcss/Digital Citizenship

Members (438)

bookmarks (2291)
Education Links

Members (19)

bookmarks (3993)

Related Lists on Diigo

Wind Legal Update News

Industrial wind industry leg...

Items: 29 | Visits: 110

Created by: CWWgroup
Law

Items: 64 | Visits: 197

Created by: sussex cdec
中國維權 China Human Rights

Items: 6 | Visits: 123

Created by: hk alliance

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo