Michael Zimmer.org
information ethics : new media : privacy : values in design : 2.0
A few days ago I blogged about how I was able to check my wife into a local liquor store using Facebook Places without her permission, despite Facebook’s insistence that “No one can be checked in to a location without their explicit permission”. This check-in has remained visible in my news feed, and depending on my privacy settings, may be viewable by any logged in Facebook user. Presumably there also is a database at Facebook that contains a record of my checking-in my wife into this location. Again, all without my wife’s explicit consent to participating in this new “feature”. Now, four days later, my wife had a chance to react to the notification she received from Facebook regarding my tagging her, and I thought I’d share a few more reactions to her attempt to opt-out of Places altogether.
Read the full story »I shared my thoughts on privacy and the Google Book Settlement at the “Google Books Settlement and the Future of Information Access” conference organized by the UC-Berkeley School of Information. My remarks focused on my desire to trust Google when they say they’re “thinking hard” about these issues and promise to “protect readers’ privacy rights”, while noting their track record is reason enough to cause us some pause, which is why we’re pushing so hard as advocates on these vital concerns.
Read the full story »
A few days ago I blogged about how I was able to check my wife into a local liquor store using Facebook Places without her permission, despite Facebook’s insistence that “No one can be checked in to a location without their explicit permission”. This check-in has remained visible in my news feed, and depending on my privacy settings, may be viewable by any logged in Facebook user. Presumably there also is a database at Facebook that contains a record of my checking-in my wife into this location. Again, all without my wife’s explicit consent to participating in this new “feature”. Now, four days later, my wife had a chance to react to the notification she received from Facebook regarding my tagging her, and I thought I’d share a few more reactions to her attempt to opt-out of Places altogether.
It was confirmed last week that Google is acquiring Like.com, a visual search engine that focuses on helping people shop for clothing and accessories online. While most stories are spinning this as Google’s attempt to improve its product search engine and make inroads into the e-commerce marketplace, I see this acquisition differently.
It is important to realize that before Like.com was helping people find shoes and watches online, its technology was the core of Riya, a photo sharing and search site that allowed users to upload, tag and search images based …
Facebook has finally launched its location-based service: Places. Places allows Facebook users to “check in” wherever they are using a mobile device, and let’s their friends know where they are at the moment.
Facebook has tried to do a better job addressing privacy with Places compared to previous launches of new “features”. Particularly, Facebook brags that “no location information is associated with a person unless he or she explicitly chooses to become part of location sharing. No one can be checked in to a location without their explicit permission.”
But as I’ve played around with the service, I’ve uncovered a problem with Facebook’s assertion that “no one can be checked in to a location without their explicit permission.”
I have been charged with convening a panel for the Information Ethics special interest group of ALISE (Association for Library and Information Science Education), to be held at its 2011 annual conference.
I’ve decided to focus on how LIS scholars and professionals need to place renewed focus on providing information ethics education across various contexts. We must move beyond just implementing information ethics within LIS curricula, and find innovative ways to incorporate it into elementary and secondary schools, public & school libraries, homes and community centers, as well as within popular …
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, I will be presenting in front of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), part of the Office for Human Research Protections in the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). My presentation will focus on how Web 2.0 tools, environments, and experiences are creating new conceptual gaps in our understanding of privacy, anonymity/identifiability, consent, and harm.
