So, yesterday I was reading the Sac. Bee Newspaper (I love to read and learn) and on the front page there is an article about Privacy and the Internet. I knew Facebook (Fb) would be in there at the heart of the conversation and I was right; Love when I am right. You can read the on-line article here: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/08/2943049/the-conversation-privacy-and-the.html
or let me lay it out for you in basic terms and my point of view.
Facebook's Statement
"Innovation is the lifeblood of the Internet and has served as a major source of jobs and economic growth at a time when our nation needs it the most. Overbroad or burdensome regulation carries the risk of stifling that innovation. Moreover, we are a Califonria-based company operating a service worldwide, and it has been the experience of the high-tech sector that national laws, especially those that are harmonized with other nations' laws, are easier for innovative companies like ours to respond to than are local laws."
Ha. Fb, Innovation, there is a way to be innovative and keep people's information private. I want them to write and pass a law. I have no problem with that and neither will 7's.
"The Conversation" starts out the article it touches on Fb and it's 500 million subscribers. And about how 100 million of those subscribers had their information available for download. (I don't know for how long, but it did happen). Then goes on to say Fb representatives are saying that if Congress puts restrictions (laws on the books) about privacy that it will stop innovation. Then it talks about how much money tech companies have spent lobbying in Washington. And then "The Conversation" ends with the thought that whoever becomes Governor of California in November could hold the final say in on whether California will deal with the Privacy issue.
"Stop innovation" that is laughable, their innovation is not coming from giving away people's private information. It is coming from growing so big so fast and saying to hell with what the user/consumer wants, the user/consumer will just have to accept it. Well, Fb you lose. 7s Local is coming and you will soon have to change your tactics. We won't because that is one of our foundations. Privacy. They can write all the laws they want our privacy is worked out in the layout of the site.
It then continues with 2 different point of views one by Dan Morain (Senior Editor at the Bee). (Title of his article = Our next Gov. must weigh in on state's right to shield personal data) and one by Chris Kelly (Was Fb general counsel and Fb chief privacy officer). (Title of his article = Good Policy starts with defining what we see as threats).
Do you think this article will be biased in any way? Naaa.. hahaha.
Mr. Morain (he flip flops on his true stance on the issue of privacy) starts by rattling off about that your privacy is basically already gone. Then he talks about the 2 Republican Silicon Valley Candidates and how they don't want states to have a say in your privacy they like the federal law the way it is. He finally makes a valid point and lets us know (kind of) where he might stand when he says "In California, privacy is a fundamental right. This state has a constitutional amendment identifying privacy as inalienable. And for better or worse, legislators don't see themselves as potted plants. Some actually care about state law...." He then talks about another politician Sen. Joe Simitian and how he is pushing for privacy rights and how he was able to pass a law which requires companies tell us if their has been a security breach in our privately held information from them.
Then Mr. Morain basically says Mr. Simitian is crazy. And how Sen. Simitian wants to stop radio frequency identification and FastTrak on toll bridges. Which side are you on Mr. Morain?
Mr. Morain then quotes Sen. Simitian saying "People care about their privacy but are not mindful how their privacy is being eroded." and "There needs to be bondaries about what can and can't be done."
Hey, I liked how he helped the first bill get passed. Right on Simitian, Ty. And I fully agree with his quote. Well said Sen. Simitian.
Mr. Morain continues later on with the late Mayor George Moscone and a voter handbook he signed that said "The right to privacy protects our homes, our families, our thoughts, our emotions our expressions, our personalities, our freedom to associate with the people we choose. It prevents government and business interests from stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or to embarrass us."
I could not have said it better myself. I mean why do companies or the government need to know I like furry kittens or I shop at Kraft and Goods. NO Reason, unless of course it is illegal or for national safety then I completely understand.
He then talks about some misused information by someone posting pictures and a hacked email account. then basically says our information is already out there, why not just give them everything. Then he talks about another law (Senate Bill 1361) that was going to stop Internet companies from asking minors about their private details, addresses, phone #, etc.. And how Fb got Senate Bill 1361 stalled in it's first Assembly committee, because Fb supposedly retained a (yes 1) lobbyist in Sacramento.
Mr. Morain is not even talking about people's information being stolen, he is talking about pictures being sent and and email account that got hacked. Um.. ok. that is kind of privacy, yes I personally don't want disturbing pictures of me online for everyone to see, and I don't want my email hacked. But he should talk about the subject he keeps bringing up Fb, and other tech companies and how their is No privacy there. It is sad that their are lobbyist. I feel like they are basically like the (some of the) unions out their but within the government. Hmm.. when will they be dismantled? The lobbyist. Don't worry I have a plan for them, (I just want them to be legitimate) but it comes later.
Then he rattles off about a company called XY Magazine and how they were filling for bankruptcy and were trying to sell off everyone's personal information including minors information and how a state law might offer some protection against that.
Mr. Morain, keep to the point. And let us know if you want privacy or not, in the beginning. I still have no clue which side you are on? Maybe you were being bullied.. just stop telling the people it will be ok and they will believe you.
The next article is from yes you guessed it Chris Kelly (Fb old Chief privacy officer). His second paragraph starts off by saying "But there's a problem when people try to describe what they understand as "privacy" they often use the same word to mean different sensitivities, and the fear of something different can prevent realization of the beneficial elements of the Internet's changing landscape'"
Umm... that is just lawyer talk to make you believe what ever crap they are spewing out at you. Most lawyers and most lobbyists I am personally not a fan of. Bunch of horse C.
Then he spews some more by saying "As discussions begin anew about regulatory and legislative efforts to address privacy this confusion about how to define it makes policy making difficult. It creates an uncertain environment for technological innovation and leads too often to sloganeering that prevents us from addressing real harms and embracing technology that can better connect our world.
Ok, he is either an alien and is trying to mesmerize us, or he might be from the church of Scientology. Or he is just good at being a lawyer. First off, how by selling my my personal information going to stop technology from advancing? It's not. Give us a choice if we want to have our information given out or not. It's our information, don't just (Fb) opt us in. That is not fair to us, we are the people we have rights!
Mr. Kelly then continues about how he worked at Fb and how Fb had to deal with real privacy concerns and sloganeering privacy concerns. Then he says "Our attempts to address these challenges with smart design based on empowering consumers to make their own choices about sharing hit the mark often and have helped build a user base of more then half a billion people worldwide but not always".
Can I laugh now.. Fb gave us choices... um no. First they opted us in and gave away or sold our information emails and I don't know what else to app developers and advertisers. Then they changed their privacy settings 6 times now, (that I know of) and have time and time again been trying to have you give your information away and not telling you if you click "personalization" you will be search able on Google. So, ty, for spewing more Mr. Kelly. I am not buying.
He then talks supposedly about people's 3 worries about privacy. 1. Data Protection Worry he says "people are rightly concerned about any collection of data about them and want to maintain some control over what is collected ad who has access too it." Finally, I agree with something he says but then he continues.. ugh. "But sometimes discussing protecting data devolves into the assertion that no one should be collecting any data about anyone, or that technology should create for them powers they don't have in the real world."
I have powers in the real world Mr. Kelly, give me my power back. There are laws protecting me. "We the people" remember that one? If I am a homeowner I am going to protect my belongings (my information) from anyone trying to take it.
Then he talks about a movie and then says "But the reality is that a robust economy based on trust and actual consumer expectations around how they want to interact in both commercial and social ways on the Internet require date collection and retention to work effectively."
Really? What "robust" economy, where is it? "Based on Trust" ... umm.. you lost me who are you talking about? So, Mr. Kelly today I got 2 flat tires and all I see are ads for "Farmville" and "advertise on Fb". And yesterday I wanted a new dress but all I got were "Mafia Wars" and "Vote for Meg Whitman". Next week I might want a puppy and all I see is "advertise on Fb" and "free credit report" (which is NOT free). People's lives change daily, don't you understand that? So keeping their "personal information" is wrong on all levels, trying to get sooooo specific to categorize people and give them advertising they actually want is a joke. People's lives change. Fact, deal with it.
Ha ha.. he talked about "personalize their online and offline experiences." Didn't I just talk about your so cool personalization feature. ugh.
Finally #2 Data Security worry. umm.. basically he talks about people being worried about financial fraud done to them. 2 paragraphs, not worth talking about.
And #3. Physical security worry. Oh... this one I think I will like. He starts off by saying "Some people are additionally worried that any information about them out there in the world might be used at some point to cause them or their family physical harm." Then he goes off topic... ummm hello finish the statement above? He never addresses it. interesting.
Ok. yes some of us are concerned about physical harm to themselves or their families.. ummm duh. Or their kids. And you go and let people put their addresses, phone #'s and emails on the so everyone or just their friends or no one can see them. WTF.... seriously, stop lying to us. Didn't Fb get hacked by some Russians and got access to 100 million people's information?
Then he starts passing the blame off Fb and on to regulatory agencies and federal and state legislation and then on to "responsible businesses" that do not give out your information or tell you on their privacy statements what your information will be used for. (NO one reads those, we all know that).
Ok.. I was and still am going to blog about Fb Connect on a later blog. My take on it... a really good way to have your Fb account hacked, by a company that does not have tight security or by an employee of said company or by a scam internet site that just has the log Fb connect up. end of story. Trust me there will be news stories, unless Fb can pay enough lobbyists.
He goes on priaising Fb. "At Facebook, we addressed each of these three worries with diverse strategies from enforcing an authentic and real-name culture that drove responsibility for every user, to deployment of technology that caught likely abusers and abuses like spammers and adult attempts to prey on kids, to the development of staff expertise and building of relationships with law enforcement."
The real-name culture I admit was a winner. I don't know what technology they used to stop spam or stopping the people who prey on kids. I am sure it is similar to what Gmail uses. But if they did good for them. Building relationships with law enforcement, I am sure they did, but aren't those same people who complained about their privacy getting taken away by fb. :).
This is the last quote because he basically goes off on a tangent to the policymakers and regulators. He says "Any attempt to regulation or enforcement in these areas needs to be recognized that technology will inevitably be moving faster than regulatory efforts."
Ok, so basically you are telling them again that they will stunt technology if they (the legislators) help keep our information private. Back Off my private information. And you politians you were voted in by the public you work for us not the lobbyists or Fb or any other tech company. Remember that.
The whole article was probably bought and paid for by Fb to get the legislature and policy makers to not make a decision or post pone it. Deception... from the Sacramento Bee... nah. From the writers? You decide. My vote is yes. on both accounts.
Take Care from
Lance Damon Bliss
7slocal.
No comments:
Post a Comment