1) Facebook also does this with the facebook ads network (on about 1/3 sites on the net). You can prevent this by disabling "instant personalization" 2) This is an option during signup unchecked by default (at least when I signed up). You opt in, a word Facebook would do well to learn. 3) Facebook makes profiles searchable on search engines by default as well. You can disable this.
So...it has the same privacy violations as facebook...not seeing your point.
> give me one good reason why > Advertisers are a lot less ethical about it than academic researchers. You answered your own question.
The difference is that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. The IRB tradition comes in the wake of shockingly immoral research conducted by scientists who didn't see anything wrong with it (Milgram's "just following orders" torture experiment, baby Albert's conditioning, etc). The lesson here is that scientists cannot be trusted to judge the ethical implications of their own experiments, which is why we have the IRB, even for cases that seem to researchers to be perfectly reasonable (just giving a multiple-choice survey)
You are, however, correct that if IRB approval was sought and given, the mistake was theirs. If he used research assistants' facebook accounts to glean the data, as is alleged, there's no way that should have passed IRB.
I can. I found the solution was to do code reviews of other people's code and find the same mistakes. I hate pair programming, test-driven design, and related fads, but code review is one solid piece of good practice I really miss about industry.
Also be sure not to look at the door handle if it's in plain view; unauthorized viewing without changing its state in any way may still be illegal because our lawmakers don't understand doorknobs.
I always loved the dark, oppressive feel of totalitarian regimes and oppressive in books/movies/video games, now I get to live^H^H^H^H pretend to live in one every time I fly!
No, it's like taking off your license plates to avoid being tracked everywhere you go and having this stored indefinitely in insecure databases sold to private industry at every opportunity. Whether or not you pay the tolls being a separate issue, don't most toll booths have a cash lane? Likewise, you can report any additional income on your tax returns for income not taxed elsewhere.
Visiting a website shouldn't be able to install malware on my computer. Neither should opening an email, Flash applet, Java applet, Word document, etc. These are all the faults of the relevant vendors.
Installing random unsigned binaries from the internet? That should be able to do absolutely anything -- it needs to be able to for computers to be general purpose tools. And that includes malware.
TL;DR social engineering is the user's fault, but sec vulns do exist and are not.
It's clearly fud but my guess is that they're claiming that having your personal data on your hard drive is less safe than on the cloud and, for the average computer user, they may well be correct.
Right, after the police break down your door, shoot your dog and your tomato plants, take all your comptuers, search them for any trace of anything illegal, they'll eventually probably find your logs and dismiss all charges. Then you'll be held up as a "cautionary tale" for why you need to secure your wifi. Oh and forget about ever getting any of your computers back.
Slashdot Mirror
Addressing your bullets:
1) Facebook also does this with the facebook ads network (on about 1/3 sites on the net). You can prevent this by disabling "instant personalization"
2) This is an option during signup unchecked by default (at least when I signed up). You opt in, a word Facebook would do well to learn.
3) Facebook makes profiles searchable on search engines by default as well. You can disable this.
So...it has the same privacy violations as facebook...not seeing your point.
> give me one good reason why
> Advertisers are a lot less ethical about it than academic researchers.
You answered your own question.
The difference is that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. The IRB tradition comes in the wake of shockingly immoral research conducted by scientists who didn't see anything wrong with it (Milgram's "just following orders" torture experiment, baby Albert's conditioning, etc). The lesson here is that scientists cannot be trusted to judge the ethical implications of their own experiments, which is why we have the IRB, even for cases that seem to researchers to be perfectly reasonable (just giving a multiple-choice survey)
You are, however, correct that if IRB approval was sought and given, the mistake was theirs. If he used research assistants' facebook accounts to glean the data, as is alleged, there's no way that should have passed IRB.
I can. I found the solution was to do code reviews of other people's code and find the same mistakes. I hate pair programming, test-driven design, and related fads, but code review is one solid piece of good practice I really miss about industry.
Right, I'll just choose never to be suspected of a crime. How could I be so blind?
Bad analogies are like artichokes flying to the moon.
Teach both sides.
Also be sure not to look at the door handle if it's in plain view; unauthorized viewing without changing its state in any way may still be illegal because our lawmakers don't understand doorknobs.
I see what you did there.
Or just double the fine every year it's not fixed.
Two parties are twice as free as one.
Not by default; you can set it up that way.
You were too late to save us from human intuition.
I always loved the dark, oppressive feel of totalitarian regimes and oppressive in books/movies/video games, now I get to live^H^H^H^H pretend to live in one every time I fly!
No, it's like taking off your license plates to avoid being tracked everywhere you go and having this stored indefinitely in insecure databases sold to private industry at every opportunity. Whether or not you pay the tolls being a separate issue, don't most toll booths have a cash lane? Likewise, you can report any additional income on your tax returns for income not taxed elsewhere.
No it should be called elerium.
ppracer ftw!
Visiting a website shouldn't be able to install malware on my computer. Neither should opening an email, Flash applet, Java applet, Word document, etc. These are all the faults of the relevant vendors.
Installing random unsigned binaries from the internet? That should be able to do absolutely anything -- it needs to be able to for computers to be general purpose tools. And that includes malware.
TL;DR social engineering is the user's fault, but sec vulns do exist and are not.
for all those of us with IBM Thinkpads:-) I've been wanting this for years.
Eh linux runs fine on windows 7 computers:-)
Because Mechanical Turk is cheap.
It's clearly fud but my guess is that they're claiming that having your personal data on your hard drive is less safe than on the cloud and, for the average computer user, they may well be correct.
This, though in my opinion the biggest tech advances to come out of Space exploration are right here on earth.
I blame moronic urban planning for much of the late 20th century that forever locked us into the suburban, car-addicted model.
fragility of an encrypted file system{citationneeded}.
I've been using them since 2006. Never had any problems.
Right, after the police break down your door, shoot your dog and your tomato plants, take all your comptuers, search them for any trace of anything illegal, they'll eventually probably find your logs and dismiss all charges. Then you'll be held up as a "cautionary tale" for why you need to secure your wifi. Oh and forget about ever getting any of your computers back.