Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Online Exclusive:</b> Facebook's About-Face Shows Depth of Consumer Privacy Concerns
When the highly popular social networking Web site Facebook announced that it would implement an enhanced service that would automatically share information about its users with other users, the company thought that it its members would embrace the concept. But within days, a huge backlash induced the company to rescind its program and to rethink how it addresses a growing number of privacy issues.
Facebook is a Web site on which individuals can post information about themselves. It is limited to people with access through 'a supported organization, company, college or high school' ' though the company announced last week that this fall membership will be open to everyone. On Facebook, individuals can designate a network of people who have access to their online information, known as a 'Friends List.' It has approximately 9 million registered users.
In August, Facebook announced that it would enhance its service through a 'News Feed' feature, which would automatically alert all people on a member's Friends List network that the member had added new information to the site. The concept, from Facebook's point of view, was to facilitate the flow of information and visits to the sites that had been created.
Users quickly rebelled against the notion that the company would decide on their behalf when their friends would be contacted. Even though the information was readily accessible to their Friends List at any time, users felt that it was their decision about whether to 'push' that information to their network.
'The social networks are always changing and adding features, so I don't think the surprise was about the feature so much as the reaction,' said Anne Collier, editor, executive director, and founder of Net Family News, an organization that promotes online safety and security. 'I was fascinated by the intensity of the latter.'
Collier described Facebook as having 'truly (and I think unthinkingly) crossed a line. Up until this big flap, though, it was an invisible line. And it's still pretty subtle: The line is between putting one's own inner thoughts and life on a Web page for lots of people to see and having all that pushed out to the exact same people in an automated way. Subtle, but a definite distinction.'
Other social networking sites surely got the message that there is a line that should not be crossed, said Collier, who is author of www.blogsafety.com and has written a book for parents and teens about safe use of social networks, MySpace Unraveled: What It Is and How to Use It Safely (www.myspaceunraveled.com, Peachpit Press, August 2006). 'There's a little less denial now among users just because of the very public debate,' she said. 'The 'age of innocence' on the social networks, if you will, is coming to an end; people are getting smarter about protecting their privacy.'
When the highly popular social networking Web site Facebook announced that it would implement an enhanced service that would automatically share information about its users with other users, the company thought that it its members would embrace the concept. But within days, a huge backlash induced the company to rescind its program and to rethink how it addresses a growing number of privacy issues.
Facebook is a Web site on which individuals can post information about themselves. It is limited to people with access through 'a supported organization, company, college or high school' ' though the company announced last week that this fall membership will be open to everyone. On Facebook, individuals can designate a network of people who have access to their online information, known as a 'Friends List.' It has approximately 9 million registered users.
In August, Facebook announced that it would enhance its service through a 'News Feed' feature, which would automatically alert all people on a member's Friends List network that the member had added new information to the site. The concept, from Facebook's point of view, was to facilitate the flow of information and visits to the sites that had been created.
Users quickly rebelled against the notion that the company would decide on their behalf when their friends would be contacted. Even though the information was readily accessible to their Friends List at any time, users felt that it was their decision about whether to 'push' that information to their network.
'The social networks are always changing and adding features, so I don't think the surprise was about the feature so much as the reaction,' said Anne Collier, editor, executive director, and founder of Net Family News, an organization that promotes online safety and security. 'I was fascinated by the intensity of the latter.'
Collier described Facebook as having 'truly (and I think unthinkingly) crossed a line. Up until this big flap, though, it was an invisible line. And it's still pretty subtle: The line is between putting one's own inner thoughts and life on a Web page for lots of people to see and having all that pushed out to the exact same people in an automated way. Subtle, but a definite distinction.'
Other social networking sites surely got the message that there is a line that should not be crossed, said Collier, who is author of www.blogsafety.com and has written a book for parents and teens about safe use of social networks, MySpace Unraveled: What It Is and How to Use It Safely (www.myspaceunraveled.com, Peachpit Press, August 2006). 'There's a little less denial now among users just because of the very public debate,' she said. 'The 'age of innocence' on the social networks, if you will, is coming to an end; people are getting smarter about protecting their privacy.'
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?