Who determines what we can see and where we can see it?

The Implications of Google Restricting Access To Anti-Islam Film

"While the decision has been a footnote in most news stories, the Washington Post is raising the question of what it means that Google can shutdown access to the anti-Islam film in countries where that film has sparked riots, something the American government cannot do thanks to our First Amendment. A popular meme in the Information Age is that the Internet spreads democracy by enabling citizens to organize and speak out, but we forget that much of that speech is now hosted by third-parties who are under no obligation to protect it."

“He who does everything violates every law.” (I just made that up)

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=30351

Article: Google and Personal Data Protection

September 15, 2012 by Dissent

There’s a new working paper up on SSRN by Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius and Bart Van der Sloot. Here’s the abstract:

This chapter discusses the interplay between the European personal data protection regime and two specific Google services, Interest Based Advertising and Google Street View. The chapter assesses first the applicability of the Data Protection Directive, then jurisdictional issues, the principles relating to data quality, whether there is a legitimate purpose for data processing, and lastly the transparency principle in connection with the rights of the data subject. The conclusion is that not all aspects of the services are easy to reconcile with the Directive’s requirements.

You can download this working paper for free from SSRN. The published version appears in:

B. v.d. Sloot & F. J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Google and Personal Data Protection, p. 75-111, in A. Lopez-Tarruella (Ed.), Google and the Law. Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models. Series: Information Technology and Law Series, Vol. 22 VIII, T.M.C. Asser Press (Springer) 2012.

Are we becoming unreasonable?

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=30339

Katz v. United States and the Popularization of the Phrase “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”

September 15, 2012 by Dissent

Over on Concurring Opinions, Kyle Graham has posted an interesting analysis of how the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” (REP) has been popularized since Katz v. United States. Specifically, Graham tabulated the number of cases in Westlaw ALLCASES that cited Katz through 2009 and looked at what percentage of them included the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Somewhat curiously, the findings depict a nonmonotonic trend over the years, with a recent decline in the relative use of the phrase even though Katz continues to be cited frequently. In 2009, for example, Katz was cited in 392 cases – more than any previous year in the sample – but REP was cited in less than 40% of those instances, whereas in the 1980′s, over half the cases citing Katz mentioned REP.

You can read Kyle’s analysis and the comments on it here.

As to what it all means, well, I don’t think there’s any conclusion we can draw from the data at this point, but it is curious, to say the least.

(Related) ...and improbable?

http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=30341

How are the courts defining “probable cause?”

September 15, 2012 by Dissent

In addition to his interesting analysis on occurrences of the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy,” Kyle Graham also performed another analysis concerning how “probable cause” has been defined in court decisions over the years. His data, posted here, suggest that the “fair probability” definition seems to have become increasingly dominant over the years. I’ve retabulated his data as a traditional histogram to make the trend easier to detect:

Interesting, although the phrase “fair probability” strikes me as a weaker interpretation or standard for “probable cause” than what I, as a lay person, would have hoped the phrase means.

Always amazing what was not covered...

New Texas privacy law adds more hassle, expense

By Dissent, September 15, 2012

John K. Wisniewski, the CEO/executive director of the Bexar County Medical Society, is not happy with Texas’s new law (HB 300) that goes into effect this month. The law goes beyond what HIPAA requires:

The changes begin with a broadened definition of “covered entities,” to include almost anyone who handles protected health information. This may include business associates, healthcare payers, government units, schools, healthcare facilities, providers, researchers and physicians.

Covered entities are allowed to transmit protected health information for treatment, payment, health plan operations and insurance functions, and patients must be informed — through prominently displayed notices in public areas — that this disclosure may occur for authorized purposes. Other uses will require patient authorization.

Patient requests for their electronic health records must be fulfilled within 15 business days of a written query, just as physicians have been required to do for paper records under state law, compared to the 30 days allowed under HIPAA.

Health care workers also face stricter training requirements regarding privacy issues, and penalties for violations will be ramped up significantly under the new law.

Read more on My San Antonio.

Food for thought for my Ethical Hackers...

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/15/securing-our-minds-the-need-for-brainwave-tech-standards-against-hacking/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

Securing Our Minds: The Need For Brainwave Tech Standards Against Hacking

Last month, researchers from UC Berkeley, Oxford, and University of Geneva posted results of a joint research study suggesting hackers could hijack a brainwave-reading headset and attempt to uncover sensitive user information – think PINs and bank information.

As a long-time member of the Brainwave-computer Interface (or BCI) community, I’d like to shed some light on the study and make an ask of the industry. But first, I want to clear up two important pieces of information.

1. Brainwave-computer interface technology cannot actually read your thoughts

2. Brain hacking isn’t as easy as the study made it out to be

The Case For A Center For Brainwave Ethics

...and some photo sites pay me to NOT put my picture online!

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/031311.html

September 15, 2012

Pew - Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online

Report: Social Networking, Video Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online by Lee Rainie, Joanna Brenner, Kristen Purcell

• "46% of internet users post original photos and videos online they have created themselves and 41% curate photos and videos they find elsewhere on the internet and post on image-sharing sites. Women are more likely than men to use Pinterest, while Instagram and Tumblr attract equal shares of men and women."

Perspective

INFOGRAPHIC: Smart Phones, Devoted Users

… according to this infographic, iPhone users would rather give up sex, bathing, and coffee, before handing over their precious device. Now THAT’S hardcore fanboy-ism right there.