...better IT education from an early age is needed. The author of the article writes "[s]cript kiddies often have only a dim idea of how the code works and little concern for how a digital plague can rage out of control." It looks like we need to do a better job (than the seemingly non-existant now) in teaching children why they shouldn't cut and paste "strange code" and what the consequences are of doing such a thing. It is not enough to say "don't do it."
Someone posted Think Geek's Valentine's gift suggestions. Nothing really interesting there, but I was kind of wondering if they could make handcuffs out of these. Or a dog collar.
You also kind of have to wonder about this as a "romantic" gift...or does it fall under the "do we really want to know" category?
But companies that are pushing RFID tags into our lives should adopt rules of conduct: There should be an absolute ban on hidden tags and covert readers. Tags should be "killed" when products are sold to consumers. And this technology should never be used to secretly unmask the identity of people who wish to remain anonymous.
Rules of conduct like those in the previous slashdot story here?
heck guess how old the old school guys who are (still)doing the c64/amiga demos are by now?
Well, not sure about that one, but if they do show up at TG, then it's only to chaperone their teenagers, while carrying a baseball bat just in case some pedo-creep gets too close...
Well, a lot of the chicks that do go are in the "jailbait" category.
If I remember correctly, they had to hire guards the past few years, to make sure the 40-somethings (WTF are they doing at TG?) don't hassle the teenie-boppers.
Some of the requirements you suggest already exist in EU law and the laws of individual EU/EEA states.
and the responsiblility for accuracy should rest on the provider, not on the poor slob being tracked
For example, this is already the case according to Norwegian Personal Data Act, which is based on the EU Personal Data Directive. The data controller has the burden of responsibility for the quality and integrity of the personal data being collected. Furthermore, if personal data finds its way to a third party, it is the responsibility of the data controller of this third party to inform each and every data subject about this transfer. Data subjects have the right to access to information on themselves, as well as to be removed from databases (except for certain government databases) and they have the right to have wrong information corrected, at the expense of the data controller.
And there should be severe restrictions on the uses that can be made of the information.
This is the principle of use limitation (tied in with purpose specification): personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with except with the consent of the data subject or by authority of law.
I disagree with the requirement of government sponsored databases. This violates the principle of use limitation where the data would be used for purposes other than what they were collected for. You would also create a very unpleasant situation if the database were to be hacked, inside or out.
Isnt there a data protection style act to let you view your own dossier?
Not in the United States as a whole. Some states might give one that right, but I don't know which ones they are.
The closest thing the US as a whole has is Safe Harbor, but this only applies to personal data on persons in the EU/EEA and a few other countries that is sent to the US.
Linda H. Lamone, the administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections, assured lawmakers that the board would comply with many of the recommendations but said that some of them would be impossible to put in place before the primary.
"I don't disagree with what they say -- they're the experts," Lamone said after the Senate hearing. But, she added, "I think it's a very good system."
Did she twirl her hair in her fingers and chew bubblegum when she made that last statement?
When you read quotes like "You are more secure buying a book from Amazon than you are uploading your results to a Diebold server," and keep in mind that there are a lot of studies that show that people still have qualms about the security of online shopping, it's not surprising that some people develop strong, technophobic and other kinds of negative feelings towards these voting machines. Who in their right mind who is already skeptical of online shopping vote on machines that can be easily compromised?
Furthermore, it is probably the tech-savvy people who will be most reluctant to use these machines. They're the ones who know what's at stake...and why.
I would have expected some information about cultural norms in India in an article about cross-cultural technology projects. There was too little mention of China as well (if any? the article seems to be slashdotted now hmmf).
Stuff like this has to be looked into! Sheesh...I really need to borrow some basic anthropology (and psychology too) books in order to get a real grasp on the subject. I know it will help me in learning more about privacy and its perception and choices made regarding privacy...
Anyways, your observation is interesting. Especially in situations where non-conformity leads to some form of sanctions. Do the "right" thing and be rewarded, do the "wrong" thing and get punished. But who and what defines things like "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" and "embarassing?" That can be a whole doctoral dissertation in itself!
I disagree though with the claim that making a poll anonymous doesn't help, though I don't have the data to back it up. I have seen studies that show that people are more likely to open up and reveal very personal information regarding "controversial" topics (for ex. incest) when they are given anonymity. An old project on anonymity called the Kosovo Privacy Project opened up for straightforward political discussion; the participants were able to express true thoughts and opinions anonymously, including opinions about the government, without fear of reprisals from their government.
I have a lot of stuff published and available on the Net (including my thesis. I have linked it here before, so your finding it doesn't really impress me), so I don't feel I'm losing privacy in that respect. I want people to read my stuff. Regarding the thesis, I'm probably going to do a v2 of it soon with a different look at how to develop PETs. (And put it on the Web for everyone to see) And I do agree, it's a tool, not a solution.
One of the sources I used for my graduate thesis revealed that people were more likely to give out (personal) information if they could do so anonymously; i.e. that they wouldn't be identified. The more likely they were to be identified, the less likely they would give out personal information, especially sensitive personal information.
The development of the rotation printing press, a machine that made it possible to print large quantities of printed material and thus spread information to a larger group of people, ultimately led to the newspaper industry. This was eventually combined with the use of instantaneous photographs as well as the improvement of transportation, which also contributed to the ability to spread information faster than ever before. These developments led to the article "The Right to Privacy" by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in 1890 that was the catalyst in sparking the modern debate on privacy. Warren and Brandeis pointed out that while the technological developments were not necessarily an evil in itself, the new technologies employed by the newspaper industry were being used as modes of gossip and deliberate privacy invasions. Some of the people being affected were members of the British royal family, who had previously enjoyed a certain degree of anonymity. They were now experiencing every intimate detail of their personal lives, along with their pictures, being put into print and distributed to the greater public.
The debate on privacy consequently focused on the protection of the person, meaning the protection of the personality or integrity, based on the individual's right to limit these kinds of personal intrusions into their lives. This traditional view of privacy encompasses ideal (non-economic) interests, among other things the right to a private life, the right to have personal secrets, and the right to anonymity. By traditional, I mean privacy and privacy theory before the use of computers and information systems (referred to as information privacy). This view stems from the relationship between people and the press, but it also has roots in relationships between people and governments and people and people as well.
It is natural for most people to consider certain bits of personal data more personal and private than others. This of course affects what kind of personal information a person is willing to give out, and for what price, as the "Privacy and Deviance" paper suggests.
I have researched privacy quite heavily, mostly privacy and IKT (especially Internet). I even wrote a thesis that touched on this kind of thing, at least in one of the chapters, part of which I will share with you below. Some of the most important aspects of privacy is that it tends to be dependent on context and environment, and based on own activities and needs. People are also willing to give up privacy for some kind of (financial) gain, usually in the form of discounts, prizes, etc. And "convenience" of course.
(From Chapter 2 - "Privacy in the Internet age")
In order to discuss privacy protection on the Internet, I must first determine what privacy means. Privacy is a hotly debated issue on a very broad concept. Privacy can be thought of as among other things:
"the right to be left alone" (Warren and Brandeis, 1890) ? which contains elements such as "the right to expect confidentiality," "the right to enjoy private space" and "the right to individual autonomy" (Industry Canada, 2001),
the notion that certain aspects of a person's nature and activities should not be revealed to anyone (Bellotti, 1997),
taking the institutional approach, the institutionally organized ability of individuals to negotiate their relationships with others (Agre, 1999), or similarly "the claim of individuals, groups and institutions to determine for themselves, when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others" (Westin, 1967),
interpreted in a contextual manner, activities that are allowed in the home may not be allowed in public (Bellotti, 1997),
a fundamental (though not absolute) human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The above shows that the concept of privacy is non-singular, and that definitions vary widely according to context and environment. Privacy interests have several dimensions including privacy of the person or personality, privacy of personal behavior and personal associations, privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data (Clarke, 1999(a)). A common consensus, however, is that privacy is something every human needs at some level and in some degree (Bennett, 2001). Privacy protection is "a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests" (Clarke, 1999(a)). This balancing process is political in nature, involving the exercise of power deriving from authority, markets or any other available source (Clarke, 1998(b)).
Cynically, since privacy is such a vague and "stretchy" concept, people often apply it for their own purposes (Schartum, 2001(b)). One of the cynical attitudes is that privacy is only useful for creating "a level playing field," as in the case of privacy conflicts with business interests that see personal data as a resource (Bennett, 1996). The way individuals actually view privacy tends to be dependent on their own personal activities and needs - why do I need (or not need) privacy, and to what degree? Furthermore, while identity is a public and symbolic phenomenon, historical, cultural, and social structure factors also play a role in how far an individual goes in giving out whom he or she is (Agre, 1999). A common argument is "I have nothing to hide," yet Bacard (2000) points out "show me a human being who has no secrets from her family, her neighbors, or her colleagues, and I'll show you someone who is either an extraordinary exhibitionist or an incredible dullard. Show me a business that has no trade secrets or confidential records, and I'll show you a business that is not very successful."
...also remember that this case was a "prestige" case for Inger Marie Sunde. The self-proclaimed computer crime expert who doesn't know what an algorithm is put a lot on the line for this case, personally and professionally, didn't take her first loss well, and has thankfully realized that she would lose an eventual appeal.
Her case was based primarily on poor or non-existing evidence and character assasination (among other things, she likened Johansen to gang-bangers). She wasted Johansen's time, the judges' and jury's time, and taxpayer money. So yes, Johansen is in the right to seek compensation from Okokrim.
The idea that kids should not be taught Linux because they're "too stupid" is very offensive to me. I have friends who have young children who use Linux and think it's great fun. There are a lot of school Linux programs that are successful with the grade schoolers, as well as middle schoolers and high schoolers. Kids are not too stupid.
Kids' minds are like sponges. Give them the chance and they can learn a lot, especially when you make the learning fun. This has been shown many times in foreign language education; the eariler a kid starts learning another language, the higher the chance of that kid learning the language and learning it well. The reason why foreign language education still doesn't start at an early age for most children is due to adults' prejudices. They think it's too difficult to learn another language, so therefore it is way too difficult for the kiddies.
It's the same way with computer stuff. Computer-phobe adults are the ones who end up instilling a "fear" of computers in children. You know the drill. "I don't understand computers." "It's too hard to figure out." Because adults think Linux is too difficult (often without trying it first), they think kids can never learn it.
You should contact the people behind other Linux in the schools projects and ask them for advice. You can for example write to someone in the Norwegian School Linux via "kontakt" or click "linker" and find a link to another project and make the contacts there.
Well, I never intended for my question to be funny, especially considering I'm female myself.
Being a female or not, I feel it is a legitimate question, especially considering Iraq's previous history of being a model for women's liberation in the Arab world. Many women became scientists/engineers pre-Saddam. My interest is to chart any changes during the Saddam regime, and also investigate the role of women and women and technology for Iraqi women now that they have "freedom."
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the personal data that is publicly accessible was not made publicly accessible by the data subject, but by a third person/party.
Aspiring young hackers?! Aspiring young hackers don't cut and paste other people's code.
You also kind of have to wonder about this as a "romantic" gift...or does it fall under the "do we really want to know" category?
Rules of conduct like those in the previous slashdot story here?
Well, not sure about that one, but if they do show up at TG, then it's only to chaperone their teenagers, while carrying a baseball bat just in case some pedo-creep gets too close...
If I remember correctly, they had to hire guards the past few years, to make sure the 40-somethings (WTF are they doing at TG?) don't hassle the teenie-boppers.
Or was it that nobody over the age of 20 in their right mind would be caught dead there?
and the responsiblility for accuracy should rest on the provider, not on the poor slob being tracked
For example, this is already the case according to Norwegian Personal Data Act, which is based on the EU Personal Data Directive. The data controller has the burden of responsibility for the quality and integrity of the personal data being collected. Furthermore, if personal data finds its way to a third party, it is the responsibility of the data controller of this third party to inform each and every data subject about this transfer. Data subjects have the right to access to information on themselves, as well as to be removed from databases (except for certain government databases) and they have the right to have wrong information corrected, at the expense of the data controller.
And there should be severe restrictions on the uses that can be made of the information.
This is the principle of use limitation (tied in with purpose specification): personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with except with the consent of the data subject or by authority of law.
I disagree with the requirement of government sponsored databases. This violates the principle of use limitation where the data would be used for purposes other than what they were collected for. You would also create a very unpleasant situation if the database were to be hacked, inside or out.
Not in the United States as a whole. Some states might give one that right, but I don't know which ones they are.
The closest thing the US as a whole has is Safe Harbor, but this only applies to personal data on persons in the EU/EEA and a few other countries that is sent to the US.
"I don't disagree with what they say -- they're the experts," Lamone said after the Senate hearing. But, she added, "I think it's a very good system."
Did she twirl her hair in her fingers and chew bubblegum when she made that last statement?
(Washington Post article)
Furthermore, it is probably the tech-savvy people who will be most reluctant to use these machines. They're the ones who know what's at stake...and why.
I would have expected some information about cultural norms in India in an article about cross-cultural technology projects. There was too little mention of China as well (if any? the article seems to be slashdotted now hmmf).
Is google afraid that people would mistake booble for the real thing?
Anyways, your observation is interesting. Especially in situations where non-conformity leads to some form of sanctions. Do the "right" thing and be rewarded, do the "wrong" thing and get punished. But who and what defines things like "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" and "embarassing?" That can be a whole doctoral dissertation in itself!
I disagree though with the claim that making a poll anonymous doesn't help, though I don't have the data to back it up. I have seen studies that show that people are more likely to open up and reveal very personal information regarding "controversial" topics (for ex. incest) when they are given anonymity. An old project on anonymity called the Kosovo Privacy Project opened up for straightforward political discussion; the participants were able to express true thoughts and opinions anonymously, including opinions about the government, without fear of reprisals from their government.
Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy
Here's the link: Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy
The development of the rotation printing press, a machine that made it possible to print large quantities of printed material and thus spread information to a larger group of people, ultimately led to the newspaper industry. This was eventually combined with the use of instantaneous photographs as well as the improvement of transportation, which also contributed to the ability to spread information faster than ever before. These developments led to the article "The Right to Privacy" by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in 1890 that was the catalyst in sparking the modern debate on privacy. Warren and Brandeis pointed out that while the technological developments were not necessarily an evil in itself, the new technologies employed by the newspaper industry were being used as modes of gossip and deliberate privacy invasions. Some of the people being affected were members of the British royal family, who had previously enjoyed a certain degree of anonymity. They were now experiencing every intimate detail of their personal lives, along with their pictures, being put into print and distributed to the greater public.
The debate on privacy consequently focused on the protection of the person, meaning the protection of the personality or integrity, based on the individual's right to limit these kinds of personal intrusions into their lives. This traditional view of privacy encompasses ideal (non-economic) interests, among other things the right to a private life, the right to have personal secrets, and the right to anonymity. By traditional, I mean privacy and privacy theory before the use of computers and information systems (referred to as information privacy). This view stems from the relationship between people and the press, but it also has roots in relationships between people and governments and people and people as well.
I have researched privacy quite heavily, mostly privacy and IKT (especially Internet). I even wrote a thesis that touched on this kind of thing, at least in one of the chapters, part of which I will share with you below. Some of the most important aspects of privacy is that it tends to be dependent on context and environment, and based on own activities and needs. People are also willing to give up privacy for some kind of (financial) gain, usually in the form of discounts, prizes, etc. And "convenience" of course.
(From Chapter 2 - "Privacy in the Internet age")
In order to discuss privacy protection on the Internet, I must first determine what privacy means. Privacy is a hotly debated issue on a very broad concept. Privacy can be thought of as among other things:
The above shows that the concept of privacy is non-singular, and that definitions vary widely according to context and environment. Privacy interests have several dimensions including privacy of the person or personality, privacy of personal behavior and personal associations, privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data (Clarke, 1999(a)). A common consensus, however, is that privacy is something every human needs at some level and in some degree (Bennett, 2001). Privacy protection is "a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests" (Clarke, 1999(a)). This balancing process is political in nature, involving the exercise of power deriving from authority, markets or any other available source (Clarke, 1998(b)).
Cynically, since privacy is such a vague and "stretchy" concept, people often apply it for their own purposes (Schartum, 2001(b)). One of the cynical attitudes is that privacy is only useful for creating "a level playing field," as in the case of privacy conflicts with business interests that see personal data as a resource (Bennett, 1996). The way individuals actually view privacy tends to be dependent on their own personal activities and needs - why do I need (or not need) privacy, and to what degree? Furthermore, while identity is a public and symbolic phenomenon, historical, cultural, and social structure factors also play a role in how far an individual goes in giving out whom he or she is (Agre, 1999). A common argument is "I have nothing to hide," yet Bacard (2000) points out "show me a human being who has no secrets from her family, her neighbors, or her colleagues, and I'll show you someone who is either an extraordinary exhibitionist or an incredible dullard. Show me a business that has no trade secrets or confidential records, and I'll show you a business that is not very successful."
Her case was based primarily on poor or non-existing evidence and character assasination (among other things, she likened Johansen to gang-bangers). She wasted Johansen's time, the judges' and jury's time, and taxpayer money. So yes, Johansen is in the right to seek compensation from Okokrim.
Kids' minds are like sponges. Give them the chance and they can learn a lot, especially when you make the learning fun. This has been shown many times in foreign language education; the eariler a kid starts learning another language, the higher the chance of that kid learning the language and learning it well. The reason why foreign language education still doesn't start at an early age for most children is due to adults' prejudices. They think it's too difficult to learn another language, so therefore it is way too difficult for the kiddies.
It's the same way with computer stuff. Computer-phobe adults are the ones who end up instilling a "fear" of computers in children. You know the drill. "I don't understand computers." "It's too hard to figure out." Because adults think Linux is too difficult (often without trying it first), they think kids can never learn it.
You should contact the people behind other Linux in the schools projects and ask them for advice. You can for example write to someone in the Norwegian School Linux via "kontakt" or click "linker" and find a link to another project and make the contacts there.
Being a female or not, I feel it is a legitimate question, especially considering Iraq's previous history of being a model for women's liberation in the Arab world. Many women became scientists/engineers pre-Saddam. My interest is to chart any changes during the Saddam regime, and also investigate the role of women and women and technology for Iraqi women now that they have "freedom."