Thatcher has died

Canadian Transport Minister John Baird got some sad news the other day: His 16-year-old tabby cat had died. He let some of his friends know by a quick text reading “Thatcher has died.” And that’s when panic set in.

The text was misinterpreted, and quickly spread. Soon the Canadian Prime Minsiter was alert of Margaret Thatcher’s demise.

According to the AP: Harper's aide Dimitri Soudas, back in Ottawa, was dispatched to confirm the news and start preparing an official statement.

Except the former UK Prime Minister, like Kanye, wasn’t – and is not – dead.

So there are a few lessons learned here. One of which is that Thatcher’s office apparently doesn’t have prepared statements for the death of their 84-year-old ex-PM – which is a little astounding. The second is the speed at which misinformation can be spread. The whole ordeal was resolved within 20 minutes – but it goes to show what an impact a sliver of information can have on the web.

Where are my pancakes?

Maybe giving up a little privacy to Facebook is a good thing.

At 11:49 a.m. on October 17, 19-year-old Rodney Bradford’s Facebook updated his Facebook status from Harlem, asking “Where are my pancakes?” according to the NY Times. A moment later, someone was robbed at gunpoint in Brooklyn.

Bradford, who has other robbery charges pending was brought in for a line-up and wrongly identified as the assailant and detained.

But his father knew better, and was on the hunt for evidence – and that’s were facebook came in.

According to CNN:

It wasn't until Rodney Bradford Sr. discovered his son's Facebook update that the young man's defense attorney realized he had an unbeatable alibi.

"Throughout that week," said the attorney, Robert Reuland, "I worked with the district attorney's office and made them aware of who our alibis were, presented the Facebook evidence and generally tried to convince them that it would be wrong to proceed to an indictment in light of this evidence."

The district attorney subpoenaed Facebook for documentation that would prove Bradford had updated his account from his father's home in Harlem. It worked.

Confirmation of the time stamp on the update and the location from which it was entered showed he could not have been at the scene of a robbery in another part of New York City. After he had spent almost two weeks in jail, the case against him was dismissed.

Read the full story here.

Inconsequential to the alibi story, Gawker has clarification on the actual status update here.

No on 1; Yes on Disclosure

There is a time and place for everything – even privacy.

Cloaked behind a veil of secrecy, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a NJ-based anti-LGBT hate group, has been leading the fight in Maine to repeal that states same-sex marriage law.

This past week, according to the Portland Press Herald, a federal judge “ruled that Maine's reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution” and that NOM must disclose its donor list.

"Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative," wrote Judge D. Brock Hornby in his ruling.

While this issue doesn’t stem from the digital domain, any issue of privacy has online implications. Last year, a California court ruled “Yes on 8” donors must be made public, and that information was quickly used by gay marriage supporters, mapping contributors and boycotting businesses.

Maine’s citizens will vote on the law this Tuesday on Ballot Question 1. Voting no preserves the state's gay marriage laws. If you are in Maine, please vote NO.

PMs call for Increased Internet Privacy

Last week, I posted about a recent move by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) to introduce legislation that would provide Americans with greater online privacy protections.

In a similar move, according to ComputerWeekly, Britain’s Prime Ministers called yesterday for a “Green Paper” to offer their citizens enhanced privacy protection both on and offline.

Across borders, governments are recognizing that privacy protection is a real and growing issue, as the global society moves increasingly online. Cloud computing as well as advertising vehicles like Facebook’s Beacon and Google Wave are just a few examples of how we are handing over our personal information – knowingly and unknowingly – to advertisers.

In yesterday’s Green Paper request, the MPs went a step further to say that the ISP – internet service providers – should bear more of the responsibility for safeguarding their users privacy and online security.

Like Rep. Boucher’s vision, PMs said that consumers should explicitly opt in to targeted online advertising.

MP Derek Wyatt, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Communications group (apComms), predicted that Internet privacy would become a “very big” issue over the next five years, especially if nothing is done now.

Not really groundbreaking insight from the MP, but it does subtly highlight that right now there is a lot of talk without much action.

How much should the Government Control the Internet?

Last week, the Associated Press explored the issue of how much the U.S. Government should control the Internet.

Similar to how planes were ordered grounded after 9/11, should the President be able to hit the kill-switch on the Internet if there is a catastrophic online attack?

According to the AP (lol), “At least 18 bills have been introduced as Congress works carefully to give federal authorities the power to protect the country in the event of a massive cyberattack. Lawmakers do not want to violate personal and corporate privacy or squelching innovation. All involved acknowledge it isn't going to be easy.”

Study: Americans Object to Online Tracking Government: OK, we’re on it

Nearly 70 percent of Americans object being tracked online by advertisers, according to a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkley.

According to the New York Times, this represents the first independent study on behavioral advertising – and the results were impressive:

(Via NYT): Tailored ads in general did not appeal to 66 percent of respondents. Then the respondents were told about different ways companies tailor ads: by following what someone does on the company’s site, on other sites and in offline places like stores.

The respondents’ aversion to tailored ads increased once they learned about targeting methods. In addition to the original 66 percent that said tailored ads were “not O.K.,” an additional 7 percent said such ads were not O.K. when they were tracked on the site. An additional 18 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked via other Web sites, and an additional 20 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked offline.

The study also uncovered interesting data on teens. While heavy use of social networking sites like Facebook have been leveraged as evidence of that age group’s acceptance of advertising, more than half of respondents ages 18-24 objected to “tailored advertising.”

And the covernment is apparently listening. According to ClickZ, legislation governing online advertising and privacy could be introduced before Congress adjourns for its winter break.

Drafted by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, the legislation will include a range of pro-consumer policies that revolve mostly around transparency and choice in how users’ information is collected, used and distributed.

Rep. Boucher outlines his views in much more detail in a recent article in The Hill:

Broadband networks are a primary driver of the national economy, and it is fundamentally in the nation’s interest to encourage their expanded use. One clear way Congress can promote greater use of the Internet for access to information, e-commerce and entertainment is to assure Internet users a high degree of privacy protection, including transparency about the collection, use and sharing of information about them and to give them control over that collection, use and sharing.

Industry is to be commended for its recent advancement of self-regulatory principles. However, while proactive, these entirely voluntary principles do not go far enough, and there is no guarantee that every company that collects information from the Internet-using public will abide by them.

Again, this illustrates how the law is always a few steps behind technology – but it is heartening to see online consumer protection receiving appropriate attention, even though most consumers are largely clueless about issues surrounding privacy.

Image: Annenberg-Berkley Report, via New York Times

Obama's got his Head in the Clouds

It’s a little startling, but I hardly know where any of my files are. I know how to get them, and I’m pretty confident they’re secure. But truly, I have no clue where much of my information is actually stored.

My company just moved offices. Before we did, I sat near the company’s servers where all our digital files were saved. Now our servers are “off-site” – wherever that is – and everything is available through a slightly clunky web-based system.

And it’s the same story with my personal life. I’m a heavy user of Google Docs, Gmail, etc. I have family photos, class papers, insurance documents, loan information saved … somewhere. Where? Not sure.

Without realizing it, I’ve fallen into cloud computing and it’s pretty great. I can get nearly any file mostly anywhere. Traveling, working from home, on my iPhone – virtually everything I need is accessible with little more than a password.

As with anything there are advocates and opponents from the cloud computing idea. The pro-cloud community hails it as the future of computing, increasing users’ online productivity, ability and agility. Opponents see it as, among other things, a vulnerable computing process ripe for data theft.

Perhaps both sides are right. It’s a great new tech advancement with certain vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. As a standard consumer with average computing needs, I’m OK with that.

Nevertheless, even while online privacy advocacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) are pressing for an FTC investigation into the safety of cloud computing, the Federal government launched Apps.gov, a website where federal agencies can access “cloud-based” IT services.

While EPIC doesn’t necessarily oppose cloud computing, it claims that Apps.gov – and really cloud computing as a concept – doesn’t adequately address issues of privacy and security, leaving sensitive information about citizens and the government vulnerable.

It’s a debate that will go on for a while, but it’s nice to see the first president to have a Blackberry is jumping into Web 2.0 – although, hopefully, with the appropriate level of caution.