Disqus - Latest Comments for MichaelZimmer

Re: Google’s Privacy Dashboard: Another Major Step Forward in User Empowerment & Transparency

MichaelZimmer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:50:43 -0000

Sorry, but I fail to see what is innovative here. All they've done is provide links to all their services and the respective settings on one page. Sure, that's helpful, but not anything groundbreaking form a privacy or user control perspective. Users aren't given any new access or control over the data Google might be collecting. They just now have quicker access to see what is actually being collected.
http://michaelzimmer.org/2009/11/05/google-dash...

Re: sex drugs and intellectual freedom | thedailywhat: Stop What You’re Doing And Watch...

MichaelZimmer — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:24:14 -0000

Nice. I'm still a fan of "Special Letters Unit" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5121VjLwqZM

Re: sex drugs and intellectual freedom

MichaelZimmer — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:27:17 -0000

Can't wait to read the chapter that resulted from this...

Re: Is This Where Privacy Regulation Is Taking Us?

MichaelZimmer — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:16:53 -0000

This would be the opposite effect of any privacy regulation, since I'd need to give GOOG my home address to return the results!

Not to mention their ability to engage in handwriting analysis, logging my ink preferences, post office routing, etc.

:)

Re: Case closed.

MichaelZimmer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:00 -0000

Curious. Why did you delete these two posts?

http://universalmusic.tumblr.com/post/90072889/...

http://universalmusic.tumblr.com/post/90075454/...

Re: sex drugs and intellectual freedom - HAHA! This Universal thing is getting straight up...

MichaelZimmer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:32:07 -0000

They deleted this post. Seems like daddy didn't like how the kids were playing.

Re: sex drugs and intellectual freedom - WTF? Universal reblogged my photo?!? WHAT IS GOING...

MichaelZimmer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:31:17 -0000

Whoa, they've removed that post:
http://universalmusic.tumblr.com/post/90072889/...

Re: Privacy Trade-offs: Why We Don’t Really Care about Our Privacy as Much as We Say

MichaelZimmer — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:56:52 -0000

Agreed.

Re: Privacy Trade-offs: Why We Don’t Really Care about Our Privacy as Much as We Say

MichaelZimmer — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:26:15 -0000

While I agree that people's stated privacy preferences often conflict with the actions they take, both online and off, we need to be careful when we use this as evidence that they actually hold a different set of preferences. Primarily, I fear the majority of people simply are ignorant to the kind of privacy trade-offs they are making with much of their online activities. The lack of knowledge, the design of tools & default settings, etc all lead to an imbalance of both knowledge and power, leading millions to disclose and share information that perhaps they wouldn't if they had full opportunity to learn, decide, and consent.

Re: Debate: Does Google Violate its “Don’t Be Evil” Motto?

MichaelZimmer — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:17:26 -0000

"Surely Google should avoid censorship on behalf of the Chinese government, but exiting China would abandon the Chinese people to government-approved information sources only."

Doesn't Google's complicity with China's censorship also "abandon the Chinese people to government-approved information sources only"? If China's censorship is problematic, why isn't Google's facilitation of that censorship also problematic?

"Google Earth, Maps, Street View, and basic search challenge privacy, but Google has made itself a model corporate citizen by working to educate users, by making its products transparent, and by openly resisting government subpoenas."

Only under duress did Google agree to blur out identifiable faces/license plates on Street View. Only under duress did Google (finally) agree to add a link to its privacy policy on its homepage. Only under duress did Google agree to limit the expiration date of its cookie. I hardly see such actions as those of a "model corporate citizen".

Re: Bogus Privacy Fears over Google Flu Trends

MichaelZimmer — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:51 -0000

@ Ryan: No where under Google's privacy policy does it state that "search records are kep secret absent a court order." Rather, it states they will divulge personal information if they believe it "reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request", among other possibilities. That is a far cry from a court order.

Re: Bogus Privacy Fears over Google Flu Trends

MichaelZimmer — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:18:51 -0000

"if these privacy-sensitive advocates are really that paranoid about it, they should just just Tor or another anonymizer to cloak their searches"

As I'm sure you fully understand, privacy advocates aren't concerned about only their own privacy, but of those who don't know enough to use a (non-simple) technology like Tor.

And if you read the actual letter from these "chicken littles", you'll see their concerns center on "how to ensure that Google Flu Trends and similar techniques will only produce aggregate data and will not open the door to user-specific investigations, which could be compelled, even over Google’s objection, by court order or Presidential authority." What is so irrational about that?