Category: Mass Communication Law

Privacy

Two amazing articles jumped out at me the other day:

Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents
If you have a color printer, you may notice tiny yellow type–the serial number of your printer.

This strikes me as nothing short of amazing, considering that anonymous speech has been a cherished American ideal since the time of the early colonial press (anonymous letters and columns were commonly printed and carried some weight with the public). From corporate scandals, to underground newspapers, to private mailings…the ability to use the modern press absent the fear of retribution (from the government or any other body) should be an essential feature of our modern communication landscape.

Homeland Security To Launch RFID Systems At Border Crossings
Non-citizen visitors (even those with visas) who cross American borders will be required to post a card on their dashboard containing a chip which allows the vehicle to be tracked when entering/leaving the country.

Yet this may allow the chips to be tracked anywhere within the country (perhaps by a highway patrol person). The safety of our country is indeed a concern (especially at the borders), but it should not come at the cost of infringing on individual liberty to freely move about our lands as long as they do so within the law. To me, this sort of rule falls under the “do unto others…” principle.

General Comment
Modern technology gives us the potential to manage a vast amount of the data in our lives. Yet when this data is created in an individually-identifyable way, convienence may turn into danger. When data is collected covertly, under federal requirement, or in an opt-out manner, it removes one’s right live and express his or herself in an environment without fear of criticism or punishment.

“The things you Google for define you”

This CNet article talks about the potential personal tracking ability of Google corporation. An interesting contrast is found when the depth of their info gathering abilities (from e-mail to everything you search) is compared to the public trust in the company. This isn’t the first comparison between Google and Microsoft, but it is perhaps more clearly laid out than most.

There’s something about surfing the net that seems so personal and innocuous that my guess is many do not think twice about the types of searches they do. Google does not (to my knowledge) explicitly state their log-retention policy–meaning that Google (or someone who was able to get their data) might be able to match personal to web data, perhaps with questionable results.

Perhaps this post is just being paranoid, but the article’s point that the public’s trust in Google may possibly be misplace is well taken.

PS: thanks Google for the free e-mail space, blog, picture software, search software, …

I’m still thinking about the role of editors in the world…

As anyone who has an iPod, or any other large library of material, knows: sometimes valuable material can get buried. In the iPod example, chances are that unless a playlist is created, a song you like may get played only rarely. The methods of getting a favorite song to play more often include creative uses of metadata, some kind of search, playing a file directly, as well as using a playlist. In other words, short of somehow knowing what file (or kind/attribute of a file in a search) you’re looking for, there needs to be some kind of active step taken to make the item more prominent.

So what does it mean? There needs to be some person or technology which plays a role of helping us know what we may potentially be interested in. Not only does the model save us time, but it also helps create personal connections of interest. From iPods to social cohesion; who’d have guessed.