<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flaw in Twitter&#8217;s Privacy Settings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/05/24/flaw-in-twitters-privacy-settings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/05/24/flaw-in-twitters-privacy-settings/</link>
	<description>information ethics : privacy : new media : values in design : 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:58:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dissent</title>
		<link>http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/05/24/flaw-in-twitters-privacy-settings/comment-page-1/#comment-63413</link>
		<dc:creator>Dissent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 20:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/05/24/flaw-in-twitters-privacy-settings/#comment-63413</guid>
		<description>There was more on this story today:

&quot;Some Twitter users willingly provided their usernames and passwords to a mash-up project called Twittervision (a service unaffiliated with Twitter except that it accesses our API). They did this so they could be part of the fun and access more Twittervision features. However, Twittervision was not checking to see if any of these folks had marked their updates as &quot;protected.&quot;

More: &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/blog/2007/05/twitter-api-respects-your-privacy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Twitter&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was more on this story today:</p>
<p>&#8220;Some Twitter users willingly provided their usernames and passwords to a mash-up project called Twittervision (a service unaffiliated with Twitter except that it accesses our API). They did this so they could be part of the fun and access more Twittervision features. However, Twittervision was not checking to see if any of these folks had marked their updates as &#8220;protected.&#8221;</p>
<p>More: <a href="http://twitter.com/blog/2007/05/twitter-api-respects-your-privacy.html" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

