Really? You can't see how doing this is normalized to all laws? It's this sort of shortsighted mindset that has gotten us to this place. I bet you'll be the first to be surprised when another country asks to have a U.S. citizen extradited for saying something against their god or something equally trivial to us. Sheesh!
Perhaps it's worth keeping in mind that what Facebook starts out with isn't always the end of their plans. While explaining that it was not being done, the video mentioned a very interesting use of this facial recognition, the ability to upload a picture and find out who it is. Wouldn't this be useful too, especially if you couldn't remember that person's name with whom you spent several hours chatting at a social event you attended? Wouldn't it be convenient to have such a capability and run all your photos through the facial recognition engine since you remember having seen them at other events you both attended? How about running all of your friends' photos through it? Why would this be such a big deal, after all you met this person in meatspace and want to see who you know in common or what events they might enjoy. My point being that saying a feature is helpful without considering its wider application and possible longer terms effects is exactly what got us into the privacy gotchas we are in today.
I can think of many privacy infringing uses of this new tech and the fact that it was deployed six months ago and didn't get a lot of attention doesn't make it OK. Note, there are also no stated limits on what they can do with it, so just because they're using it in one way now doesn't mean they won't use it in more privacy infringing ways later.
Our privacy is eroding a little bit at a time. At some point we either have to draw the line on what is acceptable or simply find other platforms that have shown themselves to be more respectful of users. To suggest that this new auto-tagging feature is really that useful is also somewhat ludicrous. It's just the lowest barrier to entry for Facebook to deploy it claiming some utility for users ;)
Noteworthy in this follow-up is the following comment:
"A U.S. government official confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. The official would not say specifically why the raid took place. He did say the search was not related to student loans in default."
This may be a case of there being more than meets the eye especially with the last sentence. We may want to wait a bit more before jumping to conclusions on this story.
I'm surprised it took this long for some publishers to start exploring Web-based access. Apple's App Store is Web 1.0 when it comes to searching for applications. The clear advantage to these HTML5 versions is that they could be more easily found using the standard search engines as well. As well, the app developer can also advertise their HTML5 across any Web site and drive the traffic to their site directly, instead of forcing the additional action of making the user download the app.
If I recall correctly, even Steve Jobs had at one time said that the apps would run natively on the Web rather than be downloads. For some reason no one was listening and every one continued to try to get featured in the App Store. Just messed around with that FT app and it's actually pretty nice. Certainly functional enough to serve its purpose.
The thing that strikes me from that sample comment is how unnecessary it really is. After all, part of Kickstarter's appeal is that as someone donating to the entrepreneur/artist's cause, you're helping someone with a good idea or a compelling project move ahead with it. If you don't like the product or are not compelled by the project then you simply pass and don't donate. What the heck does this have to do with his dad or his personal wealth. Sure, Colin may have gotten more attention for his project from his dad tweeting it, but that's no guarantee that people will donate if they don't like it. If anything, one might call this market research or testing user demand for the idea.
Also, I don't recall there being a box on Kickstarter stating the entrepreneur's personal net worth as a reviewable category or criteria for donating to the project.
This backlash feels like an example of small minds and is disappointing.
One of the BIG probs that Klout and others face with advertisers and marketers that consider these influence scores is that they're missing something important. Influence only matters to marketers to the extent that it moves some needle, whether that be sales of their products or brand awareness. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to measure if these influence scores correlate in any way to either of those metrics.
The way this is handled w/TV today, is also a bit of a black art, where every few month surveys are run to poll users on brand awareness shortly after a campaign has been run. This isn't a great way to measure but advertisers are accustomed to these surveying methods. This is why online advertising has seemed so attractive to advertisers. With online advertising, it's easier to measure whether people clicked on an ad and took other actions.
Until companies like Klout, Peerindex and Empire Avenue can substantiate the correlations between their scores and useful metrics for the advertisers, I don't see the level of activity they're seeing as anything more that marketers putting their experimental budgets to work. These don't last for ever, and if they don't find a way to measure results soon, they won't last much longer ;)
She seems to forget that the reason for the groping was to make people so uncomfortable that they would submit to the scanners. I guess it's working somewhat, people don't want to be molested in airports, so when faced w/cancer inducing machines versus not flying (for biz or to see a loved one), they choose the machines. This should not be an endorsement of her groping techniques.
Imagine if instead of groping they shot people. "We only had to shoot very very very few people, most comply and go through the 4th Amend. stripping machines." ;)
What surprised me most about this was the ACLU's position on the matter. In an LA Times article on this ( http://lat.ms/lQlzRF), here's what they say:
"The American Civil Liberties Union questioned the constitutionality of the bill but so far has not opposed the measure because it said the bill appeared to be narrowly drawn."
While this idea that it may be narrowly construed on the basis of other exceptions to the 4th Amendment may be so, it appears to be just another effort to chip away at those rights. When combined with the recent SCOTUS decision on giving police leeway in home searches ( http://lat.ms/kSizRU), any advances in 4th Amend. rights that might have been made by Sen. Leahy's updating of the ECPA have been obliterated, turning the 4th Amend. into more of a novelty than something truly enforceable. At this stage, our country should just stop embarrassing itself and remove it from the Constitution altogether. We can explain to our kids that the reason the Amendments go from the 3rd to the 5th is that now that we have absolute trust in our gov't and corporations, we no longer need it ;)
Since reading this line earlier today, it has stuck with me as an example that technologists too often behave purely on curiosity, but without consideration for the consequences of their action. So Binney really believed that his technology would be used on people outside of the country, but it was inconceivable to him that it would be directed at our own citizens? Really?
We see this happening over and over again. The Gatling gun example is one. Leó Szilárd (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd#Views_on_the_use_of_nuclear_we apons), was also remorseful of the use the atomic bomb he helped invent. We see this in medicine w/DNA sequencing (ie. 23and me) and gene splicing. I'm not suggesting we turn into Luddites, but by same token we do need ethics to play a role in technological and scientific discovery. Today, I fear ethics don't play an important role, and there's a lot of "just do it, and we can apologize later" mentality.
The folks espousing "singularity" are the latest to really give me the creeps w/their obsession of merging man and machine without taking into account the full ethical and social considerations of those actions.
Why don't the developing nations simply create their own ACTA/TPP group and discuss these issues outside of WIPO muhc like the developed countries have. Forcing themselves to remain confined to a system that clearly isn't working in their interest makes little sense. Not that they should check out of WIPO, just like the developed nations haven't stopped participating, but the developing countries should just a run a parallel effort as well.
If Bluehost issued their statements in a press release, I'm assuming they would be liable for libel, and if it was utterances then slander would be the term of art here. With that said, shouldn't the Defendants' next action be to sue Bluehost? Certainly harm can be proved here, and even if small, it would send out an important message I would think.
They did. I just ran into Fortune's version on the CNNMoney site which is a collaboration of various Time Warner properties including CNN, Fortune and Money Magazine. You can find it here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/09/inside-apple/. Like the other sites, it's a teaser leading users to the newsstand or iPad versions.
All of the links you provided to the web sites that wrote about this story, either provided super abridged versions (like one anecdote) or a link or a mention to Fortune's iPad app w/a teaser that there are a whole lot more details to be obtained there. While I agree w/you conceptually, I believe Fortune may get lots of downloads of their app as a result of all of this press attention on their story.
Given the fact that many people who care about Jobs probably own an iPad, this was a pretty smart way of generating buzz around their "free" app from which they can then generate $4.99 per issue, plus the premium ad revenue they can generate from its pages. It would be interesting to compare their ROI on this approach versus simply an ad model on their Web site. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was a bad idea. After reading all the links you listed above, I'm actually more curious about the other anecdotes not discussed.
Sounds like they did what you espouse for bands, giving away some MP3s for free in order to then get people coming back to pay for a more complete compilation ;)