After remarking on Facebook's Beacon program at Info/Law blog, William McGeveran speaks of his concerns about Facebook's Social Ads program.

I don’t see any indication that parallel changes are being made in the Social Ads program, which I’ve complained about more than once as potentially unlawful. The irony: I can’t think of any underlying privacy law that requires me to get your consent before publicizing what you purchased at the store, as Beacon does (unless it’s something very personal like birth control). In contrast, there is underlying privacy law requiring consent for endorsement uses of your persona. Yet almost all of the anger from users has focused on Beacon and not Social Ads. Perhaps this is a further indication that historically-bound privacy law has become even more disconnected from prevailing social norms in the social networking environment.

Social networking enterprises are learning that not everyone will roll over for them when it comes to privacy, information, and legal issues, social norms notwithstanding.

Posted at December 30, 2007 7:56 PM in response to Facebook and The “New Privacy” (Response to Readers II)

Richard Esguerra, Electronic Frontier Foundation's Activist, provides information and advice concerning Facebook in his post Facebook Beacon Roundup: Data Collection Methods Still Troubling.

Posted at December 30, 2007 6:07 PM in response to Facebook and The “New Privacy” (Response to Readers II)

I'd entertain a two-part foreign policy litmus test comprising the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed on September 26, 2007.

Two-part litmus test? Sounds more like epoxy; combine the parts and it sticks.

Posted at December 28, 2007 3:07 PM in response to Why Shouldn't Iraq Be The Litmus Test?

CNN mischaracterized Axelrod's amplifying remarks as backing away from his earlier remarks.

Every candidate will be talking about the Pakistan situation, and US conduct in regard to it, by the time of the Iowa caucus. It would be irresponsible not to. Reporters and commentators who find it insensitive or politically opportunistic to dig into the issues so soon after an assassination (even in response to a reporter's question) should apply the same standard to all the candidates. Hiding behind an ostensible mourning period (of a few days at most), rather than delving immediately into important Pakistan-related issues, hardly looks presidential-grade. That goes for all the presidential candidates.

Posted at December 28, 2007 1:42 PM in response to Al Qaeda Did It?

I've been trying to conceptualize how government will access collected personal data. My tendency for a long time was to think of electronic versions of Stasi-style personal dossiers on as many citizens and non-citizens (in country or outside country if of interest) as possible. I pick up bits of information, mostly on the Internet now, as I go along, and some reports and discussions reshape my thinking somewhat.

From the transcript of a PBS Frontline program produced by Hedrick Smith, at
FRONTLINE: spying on the home front: transcript | PBS, comes the following exchange.

ANNOUNCER: [Axciom marketing video] We house 24 terrabytes of on-line systems storage, enough capacity to contain the entire contents of the U.S. Library of Congress 48 times-

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] This is a marketing video for Axciom. Since the 1990s, companies like Axciom, Lexis-Nexis and Choicepoint have marketed their ability to collect vast amounts of data about all of us, from home mortgages to spending habits, and create virtual digital dossiers.

Watergate-era reforms restricted government use of these private information empires. But after 9/11, the Bush administration lifted the restraints and pushed agencies aggressively to use private databases. This internal FBI document, for example, spread the word- "Use Choicepoint to your heart's content."

PETER SWIRE, White House Privacy Counsel, 1999-01 : When it comes to the Privacy Act, the law didn't change, but there's a change in computers that changed everything. It used to be the fear that the government would have the government database in some big room, an IBM Brainiac computer, and the Privacy Act said, "We're going to protect against problems there." Today-

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] You can't have a big database-

PETER SWIRE: Yeah, you can't have the big Brainiac with the one database on all Americans run by the government. But here's the trick. What you can do, if you're the FBI, is you can ping the private sector database. "Hey, Lexis-Nexis."

HEDRICK SMITH: You can access it?

PETER SWIRE: You can access it. "Hey, give me some information on this person" or on that person. And as long as you just access it one at a time, which is the way it works anyways, Privacy Act doesn't apply because it's not a government database, it's the private sector database. The law doesn't apply to the private sector data.

Now I'm realizing that most personal data of surveillance or investigative interest to federal government agencies is likely to not be stored at federal government sites, but will to a significant extent be stored by private companies, and by agencies at other levels of government, that can be “pinged” for quick access to personal data or served by National Security Letter when deemed necessary. With the right networks, hardware, and software, it might be possible to assemble one of us from remote data sources in an instant.

How and to what extent personal data from social networking sites, and from activity related to advertising on them, can be collected for government purposes I don't pretend to know, but I'm glad there's growing concern with who gets access to the personal data troves.

Posted at December 26, 2007 9:09 PM in response to Facebook & The National Surveillance State (Response to Readers)

Back before there was the recently-released NIE to kick around, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made a convenient target. Virulent critics of the NIE must be further aggravated by the fact that IAEA doesn't look bad in the light of NIE conclusions, and that, moreover, the agency is not backing off its commitment to diligently monitor nuclear development activities in Iran and elsewhere. A fair assessment of IAEA and support of their important mission are called for.

Posted at December 20, 2007 11:30 AM in response to Kissinger and Schlesinger's Lame Attacks on Iran Nuclear Assessment

In the near or not very distant future we'll know whether or not President George W. Bush will attack Iran. (Charles Krauthammer expected January to be the launch month; others have expected Bush to attack in mid-2008 to late 2008.) Who knows how much, if any, the recently released National Intelligence Estimate will affect Bush's decision.

If Bush attacks Iran, we'll hear Kyl-Lieberman used as a justification. If he doesn't attack Iran, he'll be sure to keep us wondering whether he will. He'll know that all who are familiar with Kyl-Lieberman and with his prior military actions will be conscious of his position that he has been authorized by Congress to have war if he declares it to be justified.

Whether President Bush attacks Iran or merely tries to keep us and the world uneasy, he'll be able to thank those, including Senator Hillary Clinton, who have not felt constrained by the Constitution from anointing him the War-Decider.

Posted at December 14, 2007 8:52 AM in response to Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?

Hate? They'd better be careful with even the appearance of having that, lest they be confronted with literal New Testament statements on the subject. “Compassionate conservatism” didn't quite pan out, but “tough love” resonates far and wide.

Let's see, what things are tough? Waterboards, steel fences, locks on abortion clinic doors, paddy wagons, door rams, pavement when the hospital dumps you, …

Posted at December 10, 2007 6:17 PM in response to GOP Announces Plan to "Coordinate the Hate"

Please see my misplaced reply below.

Posted at December 10, 2007 4:23 PM in response to What Destroyed Torture Tapes?

The above was a reply to ljohnson's reply (link) to my comment. I reloaded and dislodged my nest. Fallibility struck. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Posted at December 10, 2007 4:12 PM in response to What Destroyed Torture Tapes?