There’s constant debate over whether young people today care less about privacy. Certainly, they live more public lives, thanks to growing up on the Internet where starting a Facebook account is the equivalent of hitting digital puberty. Being out in the world in new ways increases the types of privacy violations that can occur for these “digital natives.” Last week, I mentioned briefly a poll from MTV and the Associated Press that found that a third of young people aged 14-24 reported that someone had logged into their Facebook, Twitter, or email account to impersonate them or spy on them. That may be shocking in and of itself, but what’s more surprising to me is that a good number of them said this didn’t upset them…

The poll, conducted in August, included 1,355 young’uns, three quarter of whom say they log onto the Internet several times a day. (Shockingly, three percent of those polled said they “never” use the Internet.) Approximately 285 of the kiddies said that they had been spied on by someone who logged into their email, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, or “other” account.

The pollsters then asked how upset this made them. Approximately 43 of them said they “weren’t upset at all.” Another 100 said it made them “a little upset.” Less than half of these surveilled social networkers said they were very upset or extremely upset over someone logging into their account without their permission to spy on them. That seems like more proof for people like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg who say that “young people today don’t care about privacy.” Well, at least half of young people.

Most of those who reported that their accounts had been hacked knew the person who did it very well, or casually, while 16% reported not knowing who the spy was.

I’m friends with a few whippersnappers on Facebook through family circles and a stint as a mentor in an urban journalism program for high school students. I realize I’m getting old when I’m shocked by what they post regarding their “extracurricular” activities. C’mon, kids, Facebook is like your permanent record! But according to the poll, despite extensive media coverage and parent haranguing, lots of young folks simply aren’t thinking about the repercussions of social networking.

Flickr Creative Commons| kelly_chu28|

By Cheryl Hall | Dallas Morning News|Sept 7, 2011|

Millions of Americans are blithely bounding into social network sites.

They think that by setting strict parameters for who can be their friends and see their postings on Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn, they’ve shielded their personal stuff from unwanted eyes.

Those are naïve and dangerous assumptions, says Peter Vogel, an Internet legal specialist. Your privacy rights are tossed out as soon as you click “yes” to join a social site.

“Because social media users almost never read the terms of service and privacy policies, they have no idea that they are licensing the sites to free, unfettered use of photographs, email addresses, names and contact information that they intended for personal friends, children and neighbors,” says Vogel, a partner with Gardere Wynne Sewell LLPand a professor of Internet law at Southern Methodist University.

Think twice before sharing any personal information online, no matter how tight-knit you think your Web community is, he says. “People should assume everything disclosed on social media will fall in the hands of bad players.”

Social networking, once the realm of teens and under-30 adults, is rapidly becoming part of the daily routine of Gen-Xers and boomers. And a third of online users who are 60-plus drop in for an occasional virtual visit.

Last week, the Pew Internet & American Life Project in Washington released a report showing that slightly more than half of American adults socialize on Internet networking sites. That number soars to 65 percent among online adults 18 and older.

But even the most adept at online schmoozing may be shortsighted when it comes to the rules of engagement, says Mary Madden, a senior research specialist who headed the study.

“People tend to set and forget,” she says. “They set up their accounts and privacy settings and they don’t go back to it, maybe ever.”

Terms in flux

The terms of what social sites can take from users are in constant flux, and the sites aren’t always forthcoming about those changes.

“Facebook has gotten the most negative attention for this,” Madden says. “There might just be a pop-up when you log in that says, ‘Hey, we’ve changed a few details of you privacy settings’ or whatever. ‘You might want to check it out.’ But sometimes it’s difficult to tell what the real changes are in how your information is being shared.”

As independent researchers, Madden and her colleagues at Pew remain publicly neutral on the privacy issues. But she says users should consider the tradeoff.

“Social sites give users an array of options to customize their privacy settings, but the default settings for many profiles err on the side of openness,” she says. “This is generally thought to encourage more sharing among users, making the networks more socially and commercially viable.

“But from a user perspective, we encourage people to take note. Everybody can agree that it’s complicated and worth taking seriously.”

A lack of privacy is the key turnoff for many social network holdouts, Madden says. While privacy was not specifically addressed in the latest Pew study, Madden says previous surveys have indicated serious issues with trust among nonusers of social media.

“I was talking with a retired gentleman who used to work in the government and was in charge of security for the computer system at a large hospital. He understands all the vulnerability issues and privacy issues. Before he clicks ‘yes’ on terms of service, he reads every single word. When you do take time to read those terms of service agreements, it’s amazing what you’re signing off on.”

Virtual fine print

There’s not much that you can do about the virtual fine print, Vogel says. You can try to negotiate with a social site, but you’re not likely to win. And Vogel says that so far the courts have held up the sites’ rights to set their own terms.

Vogel uses the term “social media” instead of “social networks” because he includes any online forum with shared information, including Wikipedia, Yelp and Second Life.

GPS units in iPhones, iPads and tablets give social media the means to track our every move and location, Vogel says.

You might think this is an invasion of privacy, but most GPS users allow themselves to be tracked when they agree to those unread terms, he says. “Isn’t it also possible that criminals could capture GPS data from social media sites so that they can be better informed to commit crimes?”

Vogel’s advice: Take extreme care in what you share. It’s not just Big Brother watching you.

Flickr Creative Commons |Dantessina.Sara|

By Evgeny Morozov| New York Times |Sept 1, 2011|

AGENTS of the East German Stasi could only have dreamed of the sophisticated electronic equipment that powered Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s extensive spying apparatus, which the Libyan transitional government uncovered earlier this week. The monitoring of text messages, e-mails and online chats — no communications seemed beyond the reach of the eccentric colonel.

What is even more surprising is where Colonel Qaddafi got his spying gear: software and technology companies from France, South Africa and other countries. Narus, an American company owned by Boeing, met with Colonel Qaddafi’s people just as the protests were getting under way, but shied away from striking a deal. As Narus had previously supplied similar technology to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it was probably a matter of public relations, not business ethics.

Amid the cheerleading over recent events in the Middle East, it’s easy to forget the more repressive uses of technology. In addition to the rosy narrative celebrating how Facebook and Twitter have enabled freedom movements around the world, we need to confront a more sinister tale: how greedy companies, fostered by Western governments for domestic surveillance needs, have helped suppress them.

Libya is only the latest place where Western surveillance technology has turned up. Human rights activists arrested and later released in Bahrain report being presented with transcripts of their own text messages — a capacity their government acquired through equipment from Siemens, the German industrial giant, and maintained by Nokia Siemens Networks, based in Finland, and Trovicor, another German company.

Earlier this year, after storming the secret police headquarters, Egyptian activists discovered that the Mubarak government had been using a trial version of a tool — developed by Britain’s Gamma International — that allowed them to eavesdrop on Skype conversations, widely believed to be safe from wiretapping.

And it’s not just off-the-shelf technology; some Western companies supply dictators with customized solutions to block offensive Web sites. A March report by OpenNet Initiative, an academic group that monitors Internet censorship, revealed that Netsweeper, based in Canada, together with the American companies Websense and McAfee (now owned by Intel), have developed programs to meet most of the censorship needs of governments in the Middle East and North Africa — in Websense’s case, despite promises not to supply its technology to repressive governments.

Unfortunately, the American government, the world’s most vociferous defender of “Internet freedom,” has little to say about such complicity. Though Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton often speaks publicly on the subject, she has yet to address how companies from her country undermine her stated goal. To add insult to injury, in December the State Department gave Cisco — which supplied parts for China’s so-called Great Firewall — an award in recognition of its “good corporate citizenship.”

Such reticence may not be entirely accidental, since many of these tools were first developed for Western law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Western policy makers are therefore in a delicate spot. On the one hand, it is hard to rein in the very companies they have nurtured; it is also hard to resist the argument from repressive regimes that they need such technologies to monitor extremists. On the other hand, it’s getting harder to ignore the fact that extremists aren’t the only ones under surveillance.

The obvious response is to ban the export of such technologies to repressive governments. But as long as Western states continue using monitoring technologies themselves, sanctions won’t completely eliminate the problem — the supply will always find a way to meet the demand. Moreover, dictators who are keen on fighting extremism are still welcome in Washington: it’s a good bet that much of the electronic spying done in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt was done with the tacit support of his American allies.

What we need is a recognition that our reliance on surveillance technology domestically — even if it is checked by the legal system — is inadvertently undermining freedom in places where the legal system provides little if any protection. That recognition should, in turn, fuel tighter restrictions on the domestic surveillance-technology sector, including a reconsideration of the extent to which it actually needs such technology in our increasingly privacy-free world. 

As countries like Belarus, Iran and Myanmar digest the lessons of the Arab Spring, their demand for monitoring technology will grow. Left uncontrolled, Western surveillance tools could undermine the “Internet freedom” agenda in the same way arms exports undermine Western-led peace initiatives. How many activists, finding themselves confronted with information collected using Western technology, would trust the pronouncements of Western governments again?

Flickr Creative Commons | pixieclipx |

|San Jose Mercury News| July 26, 2011 |

Privacy groups and some members of Congress are up in arms, and rightfully so, over a new study revealing that many online advertising companies continue to follow people’s Web activity, even after users believe they have opted out of tracking.

Consumers have legitimate worries about the information that’s being collected and used online. It’s time for the Internet industry to come to a collective agreement about the privacy protections it will guarantee.

Six months ago we warned that if innovators did not find a way to police online tracking, Congress would feel compelled to regulate the industry. Washington does not have a good track record when it comes to imposing rules on technology; too often it has either slowed Silicon Valley innovation or done significant damage to tech firms’ bottom line. But there is little confidence the industry will do the right thing, either.

One of the leading proponents of a “Do Not Track” law is Rep. Jackie Speier, a Hillsborough Democrat who calls the notion of industry self-regulation “a joke.” And the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, Jeff Chester, told the Mercury News that self-regulation “is deliberately designed to not be effective. It’s designed to give the appearance of protecting privacy, while actually enabling data collection to proceed full force.”

To battle that perception, which was buoyed by last week’s report, consumer advocates and Internet companies must agree quickly on what, if any, data collection remains permissible even after a consumer opts out of tracking. The agreement should clearly bar companies from selling information about users to third parties. Both sides must acknowledge that consumers should be able to halt ads that are targeted based on the sites they surf and their demographic. And consumers should have some recourse when these rules are broken.

It’s less clear whether Web firms should be prevented from collecting data to prove to advertisers their ads have been delivered. Internet companies need the capacity to perform reasonable business functions that don’t intrude on consumer privacy.

The ultimate goal should be a one-click option for consumers that protects their privacy without the need to install complex software or read the fine print of a wordy disclosure statement.

Consumers know that Internet companies legitimately earn vast amounts of revenue from advertising and data collection. Many don’t mind sharing their information if it means they can continue to view websites for free, and they may prefer seeing ads targeted to their specific interests. This kind of agreement won’t kill the industry.

The Do Not Call registry, enacted in 2005, shows that Congress can act when consumers’ privacy is in jeopardy. The Internet industry must move quickly to assure lawmakers and the public that it is capable of responding to these legitimate consumer concerns.

Flickr Creative Commons | matulio |

By Rachel Roubein| USA Today | July 27, 2011 |

Consumer and privacy advocates on Tuesday pushed for greater online protections and education for seniors as well as low-income and disadvantaged users who increasingly are embracing the Internet.

Among families with an annual income of $20,000 or less, 92% of blacks and 63% of Hispanics look for jobs online, compared with 54% of whites, according to a 2010 study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

“Broadband has the potential to level the playing field,” says Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president and director of the center’s media institute. We “don’t want new adopters to face potential harms they’re not ready for.”

Among the concerns expressed at a policy forum hosted by the Joint Center:

Vulnerability to Web fraud. “We’ve got many people that are learning the rules of the road on the Internet — and without the experience of understanding or distinguishing what’s a real request and a fraudulent request,” Turner-Lee says.

Privacy protection. While there’s not enough data to know whether new Internet users are more prone to identity theft or other privacy breaches, now is the time to educate them about ways to protect their personal data, she says.

Making sure privacy statements aren’t written in legalese can help new Internet adopters understand exactly what they’re signing up for, says Marc Berejka, senior policy adviser for the Commerce Department.

Robert Quinn, AT&T’s chief privacy officer, noted that his company simplified its privacy policy, and yet the policy is still about nine pages long.

Users need to know — and understand — the different privacy policies of Internet providers and websites.

Partnerships with organizations — such as AARP and NAACP — could help, says Katherine White of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Opportunities for discrimination. There’s potential for advertisers to target people based on their race or ethnicity.

“Too often those characteristics — those labels — have been used in the off-line world,” says Timothy Robinson, legislative director in the office of Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. “There’s really no reason to question why similar practices could not be perpetrated in a virtual world.”

Transparency. It’s not always clear where personal information ends up on the Internet. Congress is currently considering several measures, including proposed “do not track” legislation, that would allow consumers to bar advertising networks from following their movements around the Web. 

Consumer and privacy advocates on Tuesday pushed for greater online protections and education for seniors as well as low-income and disadvantaged users who increasingly are embracing the Internet.

Among families with an annual income of $20,000 or less, 92% of blacks and 63% of Hispanics look for jobs online, compared with 54% of whites, according to a 2010 study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

“Broadband has the potential to level the playing field,” says Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president and director of the center’s media institute. We “don’t want new adopters to face potential harms they’re not ready for.”

Among the concerns expressed at a policy forum hosted by the Joint Center:

Vulnerability to Web fraud. “We’ve got many people that are learning the rules of the road on the Internet — and without the experience of understanding or distinguishing what’s a real request and a fraudulent request,” Turner-Lee says.

Privacy protection. While there’s not enough data to know whether new Internet users are more prone to identity theft or other privacy breaches, now is the time to educate them about ways to protect their personal data, she says.

Making sure privacy statements aren’t written in legalese can help new Internet adopters understand exactly what they’re signing up for, says Marc Berejka, senior policy adviser for the Commerce Department.

Robert Quinn, AT&T’s chief privacy officer, noted that his company simplified its privacy policy, and yet the policy is still about nine pages long.

Users need to know — and understand — the different privacy policies of Internet providers and websites.

Partnerships with organizations — such as AARP and NAACP — could help, says Katherine White of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Opportunities for discrimination. There’s potential for advertisers to target people based on their race or ethnicity.

“Too often those characteristics — those labels — have been used in the off-line world,” says Timothy Robinson, legislative director in the office of Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. “There’s really no reason to question why similar practices could not be perpetrated in a virtual world.”

Transparency. It’s not always clear where personal information ends up on the Internet. Congress is currently considering several measures, including proposed “do not track” legislation, that would allow consumers to bar advertising networks from following their movements around the Web.

Flickr Creative Commons| MichelleMcCormack |

By Linton Weeks | NPR | July11, 2011 |

Andy Affleck is debating whether to allow his 11-year-old son, Jack, to have a Facebook account. Director of engineering at a small tech company near Providence, R.I., Affleck says he feels very strongly “that children need to be socialized in the online world just as much as they do in the real world.”

So Affleck the elder, who ponders these things on his Webcrumbs blog, is thinking about creating a Facebook page for Affleck the younger.

It all began last fall when young Affleck was playing FreeRealms, an online fantasy game, and wanted to be able to chat with his fellow gamers. He also was annoyed by the limits to interaction on the designed-for-kids Webkinz site. And he got interested in videoconferencing with friends on Skype. Then he told his dad he wanted a Facebook account.

If Andy Affleck does sign Jack up for Facebook, he won’t be alone. Despite ominous reports of cyberbullying and “Facebook depression” among young people, the number of parents who are cool with their children — between the ages of 10 and 12 — having a social media account has doubled in a year.

It is legally verboten — by the Children’s Online Protection Act of 1998 — for a website to collect personal information or track the cybertrail of anyone younger than 13, without parental consent. Rather than create software to prevent digital tracking, most sites insist that users be of age. Many general-interest, multigenerational social media websites — like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter — solve the problem by requiring that all users be at least 13 years old.

Still, kids will be kids. And recently it has come to light that millions of young people are flouting the rules to create accounts on the social networking sites. According to the New York Times, a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project reported that 38 percent of 12-year-olds in the United States participate in social networks. And in June 2011, Consumer Reports estimated that about 7.5 million people who use Facebook are younger than 13.

Facebook — the mother of all social networks with some 500 million users — makes it clear when you sign up for the service: “If you are under age 13, please do not attempt to register for Facebook or provide any personal information about yourself to us.”

In some homes, parents set up accounts in their kids’ names and, perhaps using shared passwords, monitor the activity of their children. In others, young folks are so techno savvy, they easily slip around the rules, lie about their ages and set up their own accounts under false pretenses.

This can open up a world of possibilities — and perils.

Online Hobnobbing

The many dangers of social media for young people are well publicized:

• Predators are on the prowl for vulnerable and innocent users. In one extreme example, police arrested a 25-year-old West Virginia man in February who was using Facebook to set up a meeting with a 10-year-old for sex. According to the Charleston Daily Mail, the girl was pretending to be older — 14 or 15 — and police said her mother knew of and monitored her account.
• Phishing scams, camouflaged as emails or messages from someone trustworthy, can illicitly solicit a child’s personal or financial information — which can lead to identity theft and invasion of privacy.
• Cyberbullying — a broad term encompassing the sending of mean messages, the exclusion of someone from a group and the duping of someone into revealing personal information and other insidious behavior — abounds on many social media sites.

A report in April — released by the American Academy of Pediatrics — titled The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents and Families even warns of “Facebook depression,” a condition caused by obsessing over the social network.

But the academy also says social media can be beneficial to younger users. When the report was published, co-author Gwenn O’Keeffe said, “For some teens and tweens, social media is the primary way they interact socially, rather than at the mall or a friend’s house. … A large part of this generation’s social and emotional development is occurring while on the Internet and on cellphones. Parents need to understand these technologies so they can relate to their children’s online world — and comfortably parent in that world.”

Children using social media should be educated about the possible pitfalls of interaction with strangers, according to the report, and they should be monitored by parents. But the findings also lay out the positive effects of virtual interaction: “Engagement in social media and online communities can enhance communication, facilitate social interaction and help develop technical skills.”

Online hobnobbing can enable youngsters to discover opportunities for community service and volunteering “and can help youth shape their sense of identity,” the report states. “These tools also can be useful adjuncts to — and in some cases are replacing — traditional learning methods in the classroom.”

Use of social media has become so widespread among young people, according to the report, many pediatricians have added this question to their patient forms: “Are you on Facebook?

That’s a question that Facebook would like everyone, of all ages, to answer with a “yes.”

‘A Really, Really Young Age’

Speaking at an education entrepreneurs’ gathering recently, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said social networking websites can be helpful and educational tools for children under 13.

“My philosophy is that for education, you need to start at a really, really young age,” Zuckerberg said. He said he would like for young kids to be on Facebook, but for now the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act makes it unfeasible.

Facebook has no plans to create a social network space for people younger than 13, says the company’s online safety specialist Nicky Jackson Colaco.

“Facebook is currently designed for two age groups — 13- to 18-year-olds and 18 and up — and we provide extensive safety and privacy controls based on the age provided,” Colaco says. “However, recent reports have highlighted just how difficult it is to implement age restrictions on the Internet and that there is no single solution to ensuring younger children don’t circumvent a system or lie about their age.”

“There appears to be some belief that the age of 13 is magical — that children with no other socialization will magically be able to handle the online world and, by the same token, kids younger cannot. What is missing from all of this is parental judgment.”- Andy Affleck

Educating users, Colaco says, “is critical to ensuring that people of all ages use the Internet safely and responsibly. We agree with safety experts that communication between parents or guardians and kids about their use of the Internet is vital. We believe that services such as Facebook have a role to play in encouraging this.”

She points to recent announcements by Facebook about social reporting and its Family Safety Center as testimony “to our ongoing efforts to ensure we are giving detailed and helpful advice to help support these conversations.”

After all, Colaco says, Facebook is based on a real-name culture, where people’s actions are associated with their true names and identities. Users are encouraged to report abuses. And, according to Facebook’s terms of service: “If we learn that we have collected personal information from a child under age 13, we will delete that information as quickly as possible. If you believe that we might have any information from a child under age 13, please contact us.”

‘Back Alleys Of The Web’

Tony Bradley, writing in PCWorld, suggests that Facebook should accommodate younger users by developing additional protections. “Implementing a privacy-by-default model would be a great start,” Bradley writes. “But, Facebook should also provide controls so that only parents can change privacy settings or accept friend requests on accounts for minors, or something to that effect.”

In the end, Bradley writes, “Facebook is far less shady than a lot of other online destinations that kids can get to just fine without parental consent. As far as I’m concerned, I would rather have my kid safely entrenched in Facebook than out wandering the ‘back alleys’ of the Web.”

That is pretty much the conclusion that Andy Affleck has reached. He has also decided that 13 — though set by Congress — is a fairly arbitrary age limit. “There appears to be some belief that the age of 13 is magical,” he says, “that children with no other socialization will magically be able to handle the online world and, by the same token, kids younger cannot. What is missing from all of this is parental judgment.”

Affleck says, “My son is intellectually ready to handle what is out there — at least the walled-garden portions of it such as Facebook and the like. What I believe all of these sites should have is the ability for parents to sign off on their children’s membership, possibly with an agreement that below a certain age they will take an active interest in what they are doing and provide guidance.”

There are other social networks besides Facebook. Some are even designed for the under-13 crowd.

But, says Parry Aftab, a lawyer who specializes in Internet privacy issues, “unless we find alternatives to Facebook for preteens, we will continue to have kids lying about their age, or their parents allowing them to lie, to join Facebook and other full-sized social networks. Also, no one knows who a ‘parent’ is. How would we prove that anyone is the parent — or legally authorized parent — of a preteen?”

Aftab is the author of A Parent’s Guide to the Internet and founder of the online children’s safety organizations WiredSafety and StopCyberbullying. She has advised many social network sites, including Facebook.

Striking the right balance between fun and safety on a social network site for kids can be a Goldilocks-type challenge, Aftab says. “Sites err on too hot or too cold; few do it just right. Several interesting social networks for preteens were created, only to be out of business 10 months later.”

And, to boot, kids don’t necessarily want to hang out with younger kids. They want to be around older kids. “It’s time that we understand that like it or not, preteens want social networking,” she adds. “And until or unless Facebook creates special family accounts or a special Facebook for preteens, there is a need and a market.”

Flickr Creative Commons|tokiipictures |

By Suzanne Moore | The Guardian (UK) | July 02, 2011 |

There was something very odd about the bedroom of Ryan Cleary, the young man arrested over allegations of computer hacking. It wasn’t the neatly framed pin-up or the two computer screens but the absolute tidiness of this teenage space. He has been bailed on suspicion of a crime that most members of the public would be hard-pressed to explain.

Arrests have been made in the US and the hacking collective LulzSec says it has disbanded. “Lulz” means laughs. I guess some of what they did was clever, but not really funny. The Lulz are pretty Dulz: hacking into sites to disrupt services. Hackers may know their systems, memes and modes, but often come up with morally specious claims for the cyber equivalent of kicking in a bus shelter. You do it because you can. Because you are bored. Because you hate everything. LulzSec were not so much into hacking the CIA but more in the business of bombarding Sonyand gaming sites with so much traffic they would collapse. This made them unpopular even with other hackers, who certainly don’t want their porn and games ruined.

We don’t really know how to regard such people. The idea of putting Gary McKinnon in prison in America remains fundamentally ludicrous. The brilliant writer William Gibson – please let’s drop the sci-fi label – wrote about such people as connoisseurs not of objects but of data. But they are criminals. They respect no boundaries. They steal. Privacy is violated. Something must be done! But what?

Hackers are extreme disrespecters of any notion of privacy. Arguably they cause harm to those in power, not individuals. This is what supposedly drives Wikileaks. I hope no actual humans were harmed in the latest fundraising ad for WikiLeaks, yet another supplication at the feet of St Julian of Assange. Still most people make a distinction between the underworld of hacking and bad people who just try to steal your bank account details.

Most people use computers for more and more transactions with little idea of how they work. But then do I know how my dishwasher works?

Yet I am a total fan of what this technology enables me to do, even with all its privacy implications. I love social media. Facebook. Twitter. For their silliness, and for their seriousness. Twitter operates as my main news feed. But often it’s watercooler chat. If you don’t like Twitter, then don’t use it. Just don’t try banning watercoolers. Twitter was the thing that busted the Ryan Giggs injunction. This mangled attempt at privacy was shot to pieces.

I was debating press privacy this week at an event organised by the excellent Index On Censorship to launch its new issue Privacy is Dead, Long Live Privacy. Much has been said lately about the use of injunctions and superinjunctions not just by footballers, but by companies such as Trafigura. The concern is, surely, that any creeping legislation is enforceable. This is why I began this piece talking about hackers. Sure enough, I was in august company, but felt I was on another planet to someone like Max Mosley. He is a persuasive speaker whose private life has been terribly invaded, and he has gone to the European courts to get newspapers to give notice of stories. I feel if you buy sex off a number of women at once, then pragmatically privacy may be harder to maintain. Actually, I care little about what he does in private, but totally disagree about what he wants in public life. Look at the French, who have a privacy law that means their politicians and journalists form an elite that keeps the public out of the loop.

The injunctions that bother the public are mostly those concerning the affairs of famous men. We perfectly understand the need for injunctions taken out by local authorities to protect the identities of children. The feral press, on the whole, is not trying to bust them.

Somewhere between the extremes of hackers who recognise no boundaries and the activities of Giggs’s lawyer Hugh Tomlinson, who was also speaking at the event (and who makes a fine living from trying to maintain his clients’ privacy), I felt something was missing.

That is, the simple reality of the cultural and technological shift we have lived through. Yes, I think people are entitled to private lives. No, I don’t think footballers are role models. But yes, people do want to read about sex and celebrity. Broadsheets pick up tabloid “scandals” two days later for their postmodern postmortems. Mosley’s case is a muddle between libel and privacy law. Phone-hacking is desperate stuff and a crime that does not require new legislation to deal with.

Basically though, I do not want what I read dictated by a carve-up between judges and media lawyers. They do not understand that the means of production of celebrity, or the means of production of information, are now in so many hands.

It is appalling that the judiciary and the politicians are engaged in an argument without bothering to understand the basics. Twitter, said Max Mosley, is not to be taken seriously. He sneered: “Anybody can write it.” This, of course, is the actual point if it. The idea that any privacy legislation may stop online communication is simply unworkable. Once a name has been online, it is very hard for any court to say that this information is not already in the public domain. Tomlinson argued vaguely that eventually, technically, we can somehow regulate the internet. Sarkozy wants the G8 to act. How? Are we to be like China? Maybe instead of locking up hackers, we get them to bring down servers?

More importantly, we need to understand a generation that defines privacy differently. Any overheard conversation about “the night before” on any bus will tell you that. Social media, alongside the projection of personae encouraged by reality TV, mean boundaries are changing. This is really not even a generational argument. You get it or you don’t. The wonderful Zygmunt Bauman, not perhaps in his first flush of youth, wrote this week of the death of anonymity online: “Or perhaps we just consent to the loss of privacy as a reasonable price for the wonders offered in exchange.”

This is so unless you are super-sussed and have bought anonymity software that hides your IP. Any talk of privacy and press regulation cannot ignore the internet. When I told Mosley the press was mostly online, he just said it wasn’t. What can you say? These “Who are the Beatles?” judges have now been replaced by the “What is Twitter?” brigade. It matters when Cameron sits bemused by laws being broken and Prescott blusters about “mass civil disobedience” by the twits.

Laws work when a pact is made, when a consensus had been reached. This does not exist around privacy, or even piracy, as it is sometimes called.

We live in a world where younger people have simply been able to divert and bypass the rules of their elders by using technology. It was ever thus. The ruling class is ridiculously legislating about something it is almost proud of not understanding. Do I want a world where I choose to invade my own privacy, where there is too much information, a lot of oversharing, lots of daft gossip and sometimes facts and news that no official body is telling me? Do I want too much freedom? Yes. Because the opposite is unthinkable.

Flickr Creative Commons | United Nations Information Service - Geneva

Originally featured by Elisa Massimino on Human Rights First blog on March 31, 2011.  Elisa Massimino is CEO and President of Human Rights First, a leading human rights advocacy organization in the US.  The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Yahoo! Inc.

Recent press stories about the Global Network Initiative (GNI) paint a distorted picture, judging the Initiative’s effectiveness and impact based primarily on the number of companies that have joined the effort to date.  That’s the wrong yardstick.  While the GNI seeks to secure a sector-wide commitment to uphold basic principles of privacy and free expression and to provide companies with framework for decision-making that will deliver on these commitments, the real measure of success (and, ultimately, the key to attracting more companies to join) will be whether corporate members—to date, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—are making business decisions that uphold their commitments.

Human Rights First joined the GNI because we believe that it has the potential to address the human rights impacts of global business operations. The GNI brought together highly independent companies—each of which had faced challenges in resisting government demands for censorship of content and disclosure of user information—under a single multi-stakeholder initiative with a common goal—to identify ways to resist government demands that limit freedom of expression and privacy and to improve business decision-making to better protect these rights.

The GNI provides member companies with access to expertise and information about how global operations impact free expression and privacy rights, and space for discussion and learning about strategies for protecting them.  For us, as a human rights organization, the effectiveness of the GNI will be demonstrated through independent assessments of member companies’ efforts to adopt and implement policies and procedures to implement the GNI’s guidelines and uphold the principles to which member companies committed themselves at the outset.  Shared learning has value—companies that go it alone in this space are likely to make costly mistakes–but it is independent assessment that distinguishes GNI from a trade association, coalition or public policy forum. Independent assessment will help to ensure that GNI member companies are publicly accountable for their commitments, and that the GNI can demonstrate progress in promoting freedom of expression and privacy in the internet and telecommunications sector.  The first round of assessments have not yet been made — they are tentatively scheduled to begin this summer — and the GNI is still in the process of making key decisions that will determine how thorough and independent those assessments will be.

The GNI is often asked why no additional companies have joined yet.  Some have suggested that the GNI charter requirement that member companies open their human rights compliance system to independent inspection makes some companies nervous. It’s true that GNI member companies have signed up for a rigorous verification mechanism as part of their membership.  But that is because we founding members—companies, NGOs, investors and academics—understood that independent assessment is the key to GNI’s credibility.

Companies outside the GNI can claim that they are working to promote freedom of expression and privacy, and that they’ve adopted policies and procedures along the lines of GNI requirements. Some have made these claims.  And while pledges to uphold free expression and privacy are welcome, without an outside, independent assessment, the public has no way of verifying that these pledges are being implemented consistently, or whether they are effective in addressing threats to freedom of expression and privacy.  This independent assessment is what the GNI is designed to do and on which its success, or failure, should be judged.

Of course membership in the GNI does not guarantee that a company’s policies on Internet freedom will ultimately produce the right result in every case.  Governments intent on violating users’ human rights are innovative and relentless.  But, because of GNI’s system of independent assessment, member companies—and the public—can be assured that company decision-making will be transparent, and assessed against a common and credible standard. That credibility will create pressure from users on other companies to join the GNI, and will demonstrate the value of the initiative to skeptics in the private sector.  Our ultimate goal is a realistic one:  not perfection, but demonstrated, reasonable steps– independently verified and assessed–to anticipate, prepare for, and resist pressure from governments to infringe on human rights.  At the end of the day, if those criteria are met, the GNI should be judged a success.

Flickr Creative Commons | Jon Delorey

New Zealand Press Association | December 14, 2010

After a slap on the wrist from the Privacy Commissioner, Internet giant Google has apologised to all New Zealanders for secretly collecting information from their wi-fi networks while filming for Street View and has promised to destroy that data.

Commissioner Marie Shroff found that although Google had a legitimate reason for collecting the openly accessible wi-fi information, it failed to properly notify the public about that collection, and the collection was unfair.

Google also breached the Privacy Act when it collected payload information (the content of communications) from unsecured networks, she said.  It had no legitimate reason for that collection, and the collection was seriously intrusive.

Police were asked to see if Google’s actions amounted to a criminal offence when Ms Shroff began her investigation in May, but she said the company had a legitimate reason for collecting data and police would not prosecute.

Google deliberately collected information about the networks, including their names and whether they were secured and signal strength, without telling people.  It also collected information such as emails crossing unsecured wireless networks at the time its street view cars were in range, including data used to determine the approximate location of a wi-fi device that lacked GPS hardware.

“Google has acknowledged that it went about things the wrong way here,” Ms Shroff said today. 

“It failed to tell people that it was collecting the open wi-fi information and what it was going to use it for. This was not good enough.”

Google’s methods of collecting information had prompted an increase in complaints and inquiries to the commissioner.

The 978 complaints in the past financial year were up on 806 the previous year. Inquiries were also up, by 500 to 7151, largely due to Google’s collection of data for its Street View.

In some American states, investigators have looked at prosecuting Google under wiretapping laws and prosecutors have demanded that Google turn over the data to regulators.

Google began driving its street view cars in New Zealand in 2007, to collect images for use in Google maps, but also collected wi-fi network data to improve location-based services for mobile phones.

Today it said it did not want the payload data – information sent over the wi-fi networks – it collected.

“Our collection of payload data was a mistake for which we are sincerely sorry, and we’d like to apologise to all New Zealanders,” the company said.

While wi-fi network names and the unique numbers given to a device like a wi-fi router were are publicly broadcast “some people felt we should have been more explicit about what we were collecting,” engineering and research vice president Alan Eustace.

“We should have had greater transparency around our initial collection of publicly broadcast wi-fi network information. We’re sorry for not realising this sooner.”

Ms Shroff said if Google’s privacy practices had been more sound, it would have been far less likely to made mistakes.

“As soon as practicable, Google will delete the payload data that it collected,” she said.

“The apology, undertakings and destruction of the payload information are an appropriate and pragmatic way of resolving the problems.”

Flickr Creative Commons | McKay Savage

 By Erika Kinetz | Associated Press | September 2, 2010

MUMBAI, India — India has widened its security crackdown, asking all companies that provide encrypted communications — not just BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion — to install servers in the country to make it easier for the government to obtain users’ data. That would likely affect digital giants like Google and Skype.

“People who operate communication services in India should (install a) server in India as well as make available access to law enforcement agencies,” Home Secretary G.K. Pillai told reporters. “That has been made clear to RIM of BlackBerry but also to other companies.”

On Monday, India withdrew a threat to ban BlackBerry service for at least two more months after RIM agreed to give security officials “lawful access” to encrypted data.

Indian officials have for some time also been concerned about Google and Skype, neither of which maintains servers in India. Google has an Indian unit, but Gmail is offered by Google Inc., a U.S. company subject to U.S. laws. Luxembourg-based Skype has no India operations.

India began a sweeping information security review after the November 2008 terror attack in Mumbai, which was coordinated with cell phones, satellite phones and Internet calls. Officials are also eager to avoid any trouble at the Commonwealth Games, a major sporting event to be held in New Delhi in October.

At the same time, India seems to be gaining confidence in its own attractiveness as a market, taking a tougher stance with international companies, not just in telecommunications — where it is the world’s fastest-growing major market — but also in mining and nuclear energy.

“Our stand is firm. We look forward to get access to data,” Home Minister P. Chidambaram told reporters. “There is no uncertainty over it.”

The U.N. technology chief expressed support for the Indian demand on Thursday. Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, told The Associated Press in an interview that officials fighting terrorism had the right to demand access to users’ information.

RIM maintains that the geographic location of a server has no bearing on a government’s ability to crack encrypted data.

But placing a server in India does allow the government to access user content more easily, using Indian laws, rather than waiting for the cooperation of a foreign company or security agency, Indian experts say.

“The moment you will be in Indian land, you will be able to be controlled by the government’s ruling,” said Rajesh Chharia, president of the Internet Service Providers Association of India. “National security is supreme over privacy.”

He said there have been conflicts over data access in the past.

“Right now the server is located outside India. And despite our best efforts to require them to access data, they say we are not governed by your system, we will not be providing it to you,” Chharia said.

He said the government wants everyone — including RIM, Skype, Google, Nokia and MSN Hotmail — to give Indian security agencies more access to their user content.

Skype, Google and Microsoft all said Thursday they’ve yet to receive any notification from the Indian government.

Nokia has already agreed to place a server in India by Nov. 5.

The government says BlackBerry is exploring the possibility of installing a server in India, as part of ongoing negotiations that narrowly avoided a ban on its services on Aug. 31.

One possible compromise could be to set up a BlackBerry Messenger server in India for instant messaging, but keep key corporate enterprise e-mail servers abroad. BlackBerry is eager to convince corporate users that its enterprise e-mail will remain the gold standard for security, despite pressure from governments in Asia and the Middle East, which fear super-encrypted communications could be abused by militants.

Pankaj Mohindroo, president of the Indian Cellular Association, whose members include Nokia and Motorola, said Indian telecom laws are ambiguous, but can be interpreted to mean that all service providers must place servers in India.

He added that users should have faith the Indian government won’t abuse its privileges.

“Interception here is done after clearance by high levels,” he said. “Consumers should never worry some junior police officer is snooping their data. It’s rarely done, and it’s done with very good purpose.”

Looming behind the fight is a sense that India wants the same level of access granted other countries like China.

Google India spokeswoman Paroma Roy Chowdhury said Google does provide user content to law enforcement agencies, but only in exceptional circumstances. All requests are reviewed by an internal committee at Google, she said.

“There have been requests from law enforcement agencies,” she said. “These are reviewed on a strictly case-by-case basis. Only in exceptional circumstances — when there is a threat of large-scale human loss, like a bomb threat — is the content made available.”

According to Google’s website, India made 1,061 requests for user data in the second half of 2009, the most after Brazil, the U.S. and Britain. It did not disclose numbers from China because “Chinese officials consider censorship demands as state secrets.”

Google did not disclose how many requests were granted.

Skype spokeswoman Eunice Lim said by e-mail from Singapore that the company “cooperates with law enforcement agencies as much as is legally possible.”

Skype uses local servers in China and has said on its blog that chat messages into and out of China may be monitored and stored by local authorities. In places like China — where it works with a local partner, Tom Online Inc., and distributes modified Skype software — it complies with local, rather than Luxembourg, law in making data available to security agencies.

“This means there is a possibility that your communications and personal data could be stored, monitored, or blocked and made available to authorized local parties, for instance law enforcement, subject to the local legal standards,” Skype says on its website.

In 2008, a Canadian researcher discovered that the Chinese version of Skype communications software was snooping on text chats that contained certain keywords, including “democracy.”

However, Skype voice calls between computers are encrypted, much like BlackBerry e-mails, and it’s not clear what access law enforcement would gain even if Skype placed a server in India.

Associated Press writer Raphael Satter contributed to this report from London.