It might seem like a contradiction that an executive and celebrity with a huge public persona would be blazing trails for online privacy, but billionaire Mark Cuban is doing just that.
The Internet gives users immense power to affect the welfare of others. Malicious use of that power, such as the recent theft and release of nude photos of female celebrities, confronts users with a perplexing question: Does that power have moral boundaries?
I believe we have already and will continue to see real change in the coming years as users take back the Internet and hold service providers more accountable for their actions.
If anything good is to come from this weekend's celebrity phone hack, let's hope it's federal action that finally takes seriously the problem of non-consensual online sexual exploitation -- along with all other forms of digital privacy invasion.
If the whole issue of privacy is new and the phrase "personally identifiable information" doesn't mean anything to you, it is time to get started and educate yourself!
Part instant messaging client, part Siri-type virtual assistant, Emu can monitor everything you are talking about when you chat. Objectively, such an app sounds useful. But that's not the reality here, not when there's profitability involved based on your private data.
We often hear about teens oversharing content, however when it comes to parenting, experts agree, it is time parents put on the brakes before they post pictures of their children and other private family gatherings.
What will become of this suit? I suppose it could be dismissed but based on Schrems track record, I doubt it. And if people continue to join the suit, then this case will become less a thorn in the side for Facebook and more the privacy shot heard round the world.
At the end of the day we are not customers to Facebook rather we are products that offer cash potential to advertisers (their true customers) based on every online move we make. Facebook knows it. We know it. Zuckasaurus knows it.
Facebook is doing everything it can to rebuild another you, faster, stronger, more perfect, and more capable of maximizing the profit it hopes to extract with advertisers. Sound farfetched? Not when you throw in the opening an English investigation as to whether Facebook violated data protection laws with its actions.
I think the word bullying is overused in general -- with both adults and minors. We see the word being used inappropriately or out of context in many cases today... I think society has co-opted this term, which is sad, because it is actually weakening it and people are not taking it serious as they should.
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts feels that if a social media company states that they have access to view and analyze your posts, content, and relationships, then that ought to be fair game for the government (and law enforcement), too.
As consumers we need to ask the companies whose sites we are visiting who they are working with, and be really clear what steps they are taking to prevent themselves being the weakest security link in what is an already weak website technology chain.
What we tend to forget is that ultimately, the responsibility of privacy management does not rest solely on the shoulders of technology companies; it rests on consumers too.
The Silicon Valley tech giants want to reform government surveillance on the Internet? That's what they say, anyway.
Truthfully? I want to be protected from the monetizers as much as I want to be protected from the snoops -- although I can make a better case for the snoops.