Categories
Technology

Facebook Linkbait

The Lawyers Weekly will be warning law firms about the dangers of Facebook. Will be? Yes, the article is dated January 25, 2008, or two days from today. Nifty time travel trick aside, the article is great linkbait because Kevin O’Keefe commented on it, and I feel the need to chime in as well.

Written by an electronic discovery expert, the article warns about the supposed perils of Facebook. True, Facebook users face some risk that their private data may be exposed to “fraudsters and corporate spies.” However, Facebook users can control what information appears on Facebook as well as who has access to it. In contrast, all the major credit reporting bureaus possess far more sensitive information in their databases, and you cannot easily correct or remove data that you want to keep out of the hands of third parties. I’m 100x more worried about a credit reporting bureau losing a data tape or a laptop with confidential information than someone hacking Facebook and downloading profile data. This is self-reported profile data and, as we should all know by now, you can’t believe everything you read online.

Also, the author presents a false dichotomy where social networking applications only have a non-work-related purpose. Sure, corporations and law firms should rightfully be concerned that their employees are wasting company time visiting blogs and other social networking sites for their own personal purposes. However, I am increasingly discovering that for long-tail searches, most of my results come from blogs instead of mainstream media sites. Nowadays, whenever someone encounters a problem, they blog about it instead of seething silently. And, when you are lucky, they also tell you about the solution they discovered. Ban Web 2.0 applications and you lose a lot of collective knowledge. Reminds me of this incident from the not too distant past.

Categories
criminal law Technology

Government Safeguard an Oxymoron?

Last weekend, I had spotted Donald Kerr’s comments about reinterpreting privacy to mean that the government should have access to our private communications and financial information provided proper safeguards are in place. Who trusts the government to erect proper safeguards? Today, PC World reported that a former FBI and CIA employee had plead guilty to accessing a U.S. government computer system for unlawful purposes. The details of this case should make everyone think twice about granting the government unfettered access to all our private data.

In this case, a woman from Lebanon obtained American citizenship by entering into a fraudulent marriage. With her U.S. citizenship in hand, she was then able to secure employment with the FBI and CIA, two governmental agencies you assume would perform rigorous background checks on all their job applicants. Then, while working at the FBI, she looked up information on her family members and Hizballah. Sure, the government was able to secure a conviction, but let’s talk about those government safeguards. We’re talking about an ex-waitress and hostess at a Detroit restaurant, not a highly trained mole trying to embed into the upper echelons of our government. If she can penetrate the FBI and CIA, we’re screwed. And, all your neighbors who work for the government are reading through your file on the taxpayer’s dime. Good grief!

Categories
Technology

No Privacy Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

Was the Fourth Amendment recently repealed? I may have missed it but the Associated Press reports that Donald Kerr recently testified that the time has come for us to adjust our definition of privacy. That’s a one-liner that should scare most Americans, especially when you consider he is the deputy director of national intelligence. If you weren’t scared before, you should surely be scared now.

Instead, Donald Kerr proposes that privacy should mean that the government and businesses properly safeguard our private communications and financial information. That’s frightening! And Congress had the temerity to criticize Yahoo! for turning over e-mail records to the Chinese government?

Seriously. If some people want to change the definition of marriage, that really doesn’t impact most of us on a day-to-day basis. However, if the government can simply siphon all our private information and financial records, and run some terrorist algorithm based on that data, we’re in a lot of trouble. Time for a Defense of Privacy Act.

Categories
Technology

China's PATRIOT Act

BusinessWeek: Jerry Yang on the Hot Seat. On Nov. 6, Yahoo! CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang answered to Congress for his company’s role in landing Tao behind bars. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs called on Yang on Nov. 6 to explain what reasons the Chinese government gave when it requested information from Tao’s Yahoo e-mail account.

Seriously, is this the U.S. House of Representations or the Chinese House of Representatives. I’m all for spreading freedom and democracy abroad, but can’t we first fix a few matters at home? When Tom Lantos criticizes a huge, U.S.-based multinational company for assiduously cooperating with the police, I’m thinking of search warrants for Yahoo
e-mail accounts as well as the Justice Department’s subpoena of Google search data. 🙄 It’s not just the Chinese who require a little protection from over-reaching bureaucrats.