Tag Archives: prweb-newswire

Facebook, Twitter & Google Oppose Law That Would Protect Your Privacy

I know, I know, Facebook privacy rants are normally the stomping ground of our fearless managing editor Frank Reed, but I just have to bring to your attention that Facebook et al are trying to block a California bill that would make your social networking more private.

Despite the feigned empathy towards those that are worried about the sharing of sensitive personal information, Facebook leads a group–which includes Google, Twitter and Zynga–in opposing proposed legislation in California that would make it mandatory for social networks to shore up their privacy settings.

If it passes, the law would require social networks to make all information private by default, unless the user chooses to go through each setting and remove any privacy. Clearly this is a smart idea for the user, as it would let them decide which sensitive information is shared publicly. You would also think that this would take the heat off of the social networking sites, as they would no longer get complaints that their privacy settings where too, well, non-existent.

But sadly no.

There’s money to be made and it’s not going to happen if you prevent all of your telephone, email, friend, and hobby information sit behind your privacy settings. So, in the interests of making money improving your social networking experience, these companies are opposing the bill on the grounds that:

  • Asking users to make privacy choices at the outset–the group calls this “privacy shrink wrap”–will result in bad and overly broad decisions. The Federal Trade Commission recently said that it’s best practice to ask users to make privacy decisions on an item-by-item basis so they can understand the context.
  • Users are already setting their privacy settings themselves, and don’t seem to have had problems with social networks failing to remove content after it’s been requested.
  • Many social networking companies are based in California, and implementing these practices would significantly impact their businesses at a time when the state’s economy is in shambles.
  • SB 242 is unconstitutional because it interferes with freedom of speech and interstate commerce. Quote: “By hiding from view of all existing usersʼ information until they made a contrary choice, the State of California would be significantly limiting those usersʼ ability to ‘freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.’”

Do any of the above reasons wash with you? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a good thing for new accounts to be private by default, but I also don’t like these companies hiding their real motives behind some feigned altruism.

Thoughts?

Facebook, Twitter & Google Oppose Law That Would Protect Your Privacy

I know, I know, Facebook privacy rants are normally the stomping ground of our fearless managing editor Frank Reed, but I just have to bring to your attention that Facebook et al are trying to block a California bill that would make your social networking more private.

Despite the feigned empathy towards those that are worried about the sharing of sensitive personal information, Facebook leads a group–which includes Google, Twitter and Zynga–in opposing proposed legislation in California that would make it mandatory for social networks to shore up their privacy settings.

If it passes, the law would require social networks to make all information private by default, unless the user chooses to go through each setting and remove any privacy. Clearly this is a smart idea for the user, as it would let them decide which sensitive information is shared publicly. You would also think that this would take the heat off of the social networking sites, as they would no longer get complaints that their privacy settings where too, well, non-existent.

But sadly no.

There’s money to be made and it’s not going to happen if you prevent all of your telephone, email, friend, and hobby information sit behind your privacy settings. So, in the interests of making money improving your social networking experience, these companies are opposing the bill on the grounds that:

  • Asking users to make privacy choices at the outset–the group calls this “privacy shrink wrap”–will result in bad and overly broad decisions. The Federal Trade Commission recently said that it’s best practice to ask users to make privacy decisions on an item-by-item basis so they can understand the context.
  • Users are already setting their privacy settings themselves, and don’t seem to have had problems with social networks failing to remove content after it’s been requested.
  • Many social networking companies are based in California, and implementing these practices would significantly impact their businesses at a time when the state’s economy is in shambles.
  • SB 242 is unconstitutional because it interferes with freedom of speech and interstate commerce. Quote: “By hiding from view of all existing usersʼ information until they made a contrary choice, the State of California would be significantly limiting those usersʼ ability to ‘freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.’”

Do any of the above reasons wash with you? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a good thing for new accounts to be private by default, but I also don’t like these companies hiding their real motives behind some feigned altruism.

Thoughts?

Facebook, Twitter & Google Oppose Law That Would Protect Your Privacy

I know, I know, Facebook privacy rants are normally the stomping ground of our fearless managing editor Frank Reed, but I just have to bring to your attention that Facebook et al are trying to block a California bill that would make your social networking more private.

Despite the feigned empathy towards those that are worried about the sharing of sensitive personal information, Facebook leads a group–which includes Google, Twitter and Zynga–in opposing proposed legislation in California that would make it mandatory for social networks to shore up their privacy settings.

If it passes, the law would require social networks to make all information private by default, unless the user chooses to go through each setting and remove any privacy. Clearly this is a smart idea for the user, as it would let them decide which sensitive information is shared publicly. You would also think that this would take the heat off of the social networking sites, as they would no longer get complaints that their privacy settings where too, well, non-existent.

But sadly no.

There’s money to be made and it’s not going to happen if you prevent all of your telephone, email, friend, and hobby information sit behind your privacy settings. So, in the interests of making money improving your social networking experience, these companies are opposing the bill on the grounds that:

  • Asking users to make privacy choices at the outset–the group calls this “privacy shrink wrap”–will result in bad and overly broad decisions. The Federal Trade Commission recently said that it’s best practice to ask users to make privacy decisions on an item-by-item basis so they can understand the context.
  • Users are already setting their privacy settings themselves, and don’t seem to have had problems with social networks failing to remove content after it’s been requested.
  • Many social networking companies are based in California, and implementing these practices would significantly impact their businesses at a time when the state’s economy is in shambles.
  • SB 242 is unconstitutional because it interferes with freedom of speech and interstate commerce. Quote: “By hiding from view of all existing usersʼ information until they made a contrary choice, the State of California would be significantly limiting those usersʼ ability to ‘freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.’”

Do any of the above reasons wash with you? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a good thing for new accounts to be private by default, but I also don’t like these companies hiding their real motives behind some feigned altruism.

Thoughts?

Facebook, Twitter & Google Oppose Law That Would Protect Your Privacy

I know, I know, Facebook privacy rants are normally the stomping ground of our fearless managing editor Frank Reed, but I just have to bring to your attention that Facebook et al are trying to block a California bill that would make your social networking more private.

Despite the feigned empathy towards those that are worried about the sharing of sensitive personal information, Facebook leads a group–which includes Google, Twitter and Zynga–in opposing proposed legislation in California that would make it mandatory for social networks to shore up their privacy settings.

If it passes, the law would require social networks to make all information private by default, unless the user chooses to go through each setting and remove any privacy. Clearly this is a smart idea for the user, as it would let them decide which sensitive information is shared publicly. You would also think that this would take the heat off of the social networking sites, as they would no longer get complaints that their privacy settings where too, well, non-existent.

But sadly no.

There’s money to be made and it’s not going to happen if you prevent all of your telephone, email, friend, and hobby information sit behind your privacy settings. So, in the interests of making money improving your social networking experience, these companies are opposing the bill on the grounds that:

  • Asking users to make privacy choices at the outset–the group calls this “privacy shrink wrap”–will result in bad and overly broad decisions. The Federal Trade Commission recently said that it’s best practice to ask users to make privacy decisions on an item-by-item basis so they can understand the context.
  • Users are already setting their privacy settings themselves, and don’t seem to have had problems with social networks failing to remove content after it’s been requested.
  • Many social networking companies are based in California, and implementing these practices would significantly impact their businesses at a time when the state’s economy is in shambles.
  • SB 242 is unconstitutional because it interferes with freedom of speech and interstate commerce. Quote: “By hiding from view of all existing usersʼ information until they made a contrary choice, the State of California would be significantly limiting those usersʼ ability to ‘freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.’”

Do any of the above reasons wash with you? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a good thing for new accounts to be private by default, but I also don’t like these companies hiding their real motives behind some feigned altruism.

Thoughts?

New York City Aims To Be Top Digital City

The city that never sleeps is looking to make sure that those folks will have something to do online while they stay awake 24/7.

Being originally from the tri-state area I am a bit surprised that the city has not made a push to claim this title sooner. But not to be outdone, New York spent 90 days to put together a very comprehensive report of where the city is digitally.

Only organizations that are actually serious about their online efforts take the time and resources to fully access where they currently stands first. It looks like NYC is determined to do it right which is refreshing in the world of “jump in and figure it out later” which we currently live in. It’s worth a look to peruse the entire 63 page document that was produced by the city for the public to see.

TechCrunch outlined the main tools and services to be used by the city which was presented by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chief Digital Officer Rachel Sterne.

FACEBOOK
Before the end of July, to launch the city’s first, “streamlined” Facebook page, and integrate Facebook sharing features on Nyc.gov, eventually creating opportunities for New Yorkers to voice their opinions, engage in discussions, ask questions and participate in citywide polls via Facebook.

FOURSQUARE
Add public spaces to Foursquare, and launch a custom Foursquare badge encouraging visits to City spaces such as parks and cultural centers.

Develop a partnership between Foursquare and NYC’s Department of Small Business Services to distribute a small business, Foursquare tool-kit for local companies.

TWITTER
Launch an @nycgov Twitter account to provide residents with a “one-stop shop” for real-time updates on City news and services.
Become the first city to use Twitter’s just-announced Fast Follow service, which will allow New Yorkers to receive @nycgov Twitter updates via SMS by texting “follow nycgov” to 40404. (Neither a computer nor Twitter account is required to receive @nycgov Tweets via SMS text message.)

TUMBLR
Begin training city agencies that currently use social media, working with Tumblr, in particular to build city agency pages and train them in social media design and best practices.

OTHER
Redesign NYC.gov, hosting a hackathon at the local co-work space and incubator, General Assemb.ly, to gather ideas for this effort.

Create an advisory group within NYC government called SMART (Social Media Advisory & Research Taskforce) to manage the city’s social media feeds, evaluate new platforms and make recommendations on social media tools and strategies to all city agencies…updating guidelines and policies

Increase digital access among New Yorkers by introducing WiFi to more public spaces through federally funded initiatives, launching education and outreach efforts to increase broadband internet adoption and supporting more broadband choices citywide

Leave to New York to have such an ambitious plan. Of course, it wouldn’t be New York without a little humor thrown in and their use of Tumblr to create the Daily Pothole says it all.

Of course, in the end this is all a lot of talk. Until the city pulls together its current assets and shows the rest of the world that it indeed does have its digital act together it’s just a report and some hype.

I hope this plan turns into reality and creates a roadmap where other cities can avoid the digital potholes that exist on the good ol’ information super highway.


Credit:
New York City Aims To Be Top Digital City