<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Privacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/privacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Who owns your tweets?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/who_owns_your_tweets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/who_owns_your_tweets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12909663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A judge's decision to uphold a subpoena for an Occupy arrestee's Twitter account raises serious privacy issues]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tweet a lot. Sometimes I feel like I tweet more often than I have face-to-face conversations -- and therein lie multiple issues that will not be addressed here (but perhaps one day, in therapy). However, in the course of constructing these 140-character-or-less nuggets of opinion, information or political agitation, never did I give much thought to whether these tweets were mine. It turns out they're not, in the eyes of the law. For all the clamor about <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/the_revolution_will_be_tweeted?hidecomments=yes" target="_blank">Twitter's revolutionary potential</a> in the Middle East, we have a reminder right here in New York of its revolutionary limitations.</p><p>On Monday, a Manhattan judge ruled that writer, Occupy Wall Street participant and<a href="http://gawker.com/5868073/"> prankster </a>(and, for the purpose of full disclosure, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/21/new-york-city-finally-stands-up-to-occupy">my good friend</a>) Malcolm Harris will not be able to block a subpoena on his Twitter account, including "any and all user information including email addresses" tied to it because, according to the judge, our tweets are not ours at all.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/who_owns_your_tweets/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/who_owns_your_tweets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The drones are coming &#8212; to America</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_drones_are_coming_to_america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_drones_are_coming_to_america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12832701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress has opened up U.S. airspace to the drone industry -- and your privacy is about to be at risk]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A drone is probably heading toward your personal airspace soon. With Congress requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to simplify and expedite drone applications from U.S. police departments by May 15, industry and watchdog groups agree: It won't be long before cops and first responders put them into action.</p><p>Thanks to a law passed <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/drone-journalism-businesses-and-policing--the-pilotless-aircraft-could-soon-fill-us-skies/2012/02/21/gIQAxB2gRR_blog.html">without much public debate</a> in March, the FAA must allow law enforcement agencies to operate small drones (i.e., less than 4.4 pounds) at altitudes of less than 400 feet. "The demand is huge," says Catherine Crump, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. Michael Toscano, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, says there are nearly 19,000 law enforcement entities in the United States, of which only 300 now have aerial surveillance capacities.</p><p>"Those departments have helicopters which cost about $1,500 an hour to operate," Toscano says. "You can fly these drones for maybe less than $50 hour. A lot of smaller departments can now afford this technology."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_drones_are_coming_to_america/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_drones_are_coming_to_america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The spread of &#8220;Suspicious Activity Reporting&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_spread_of_suspicious_activity_reporting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_spread_of_suspicious_activity_reporting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12755531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Suspicious Activity Reporting asks citizens to keep an eye out on their neighbors -- and it's spreading]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crime in Los Angeles is a gritty enterprise, and donning an LAPD badge has historically involved getting your hands dirty. Long before the New York Police Department was spying on Muslim students, the LAPD was <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926417,00.html" target="_blank">running</a> a large-scale domestic spy operation in the 1970s and '80s, snooping on and infiltrating more than 200 political, labor and civic organizations including the office of then Mayor Tom Bradley. Today, the LAPD isn't quite so aggressive, but it still employs a directive titled Special Order 1, which permits police officers to deem what is “suspicious” and then act on it.</p><p>SO 1 enables LAPD officers to file Suspicious Activity Reports on observed behaviors or activities. Where things get murky, however, is how SAR guidelines categorize constitutionally protected, non-criminal and commonplace activities such as using binoculars, snapping photographs and taking notes as indicators of terrorism-related activity. The SARs are coupled with the LAPD's iWatch program, a <a href="http://www.lapdonline.org/iwatchla">campaign</a> the police pioneered to encourage regular citizens to report "suspicious" activity, including “a person wearing clothes that are too big or too hot for the weather,” or things that just plain old don’t “look right.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_spread_of_suspicious_activity_reporting/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/30/the_spread_of_suspicious_activity_reporting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The rise of Facebook Nation</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/the_rise_of_facebook_nation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/the_rise_of_facebook_nation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10695471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The social network has become as big and powerful as a country -- and it's time its citizens got a constitution]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When David Cameron became Britain’s prime minister, he made an appointment to talk to another head of state — Mark Zuckerberg. Yes, that Mark Zuckerberg: the billionaire wunderkind, the founder of Facebook. At the meeting at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Cameron and Facebook president Zuckerberg discussed ways in which social networks could take over certain governmental duties and inform public policymaking.</p><p>A month later, Zuckerberg and Cameron had a follow-up conversation, later posted on YouTube. Cameron, dressed in suit and tie, chatted with Zuckerberg, who wore a blue cotton T-shirt. “Basically, we’ve got a big problem here,” Cameron pointed out to Zuckerberg, describing the U.K.’s financial woes.</p><p>Zuckerberg outlined how Facebook could be used as a platform to decrease spending and increase public participation in the political process: “I mean  all these people have great ideas and a lot of energy that they want to bring, and I think for a lot of people it’s just about having an easy and a cheap way for them too to communicate  their ideas.”</p><p>“Brilliant,” Cameron said.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/the_rise_of_facebook_nation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/the_rise_of_facebook_nation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NYPD eyed U.S. citizens in intel effort</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/us_nypd_intelligence_1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/us_nypd_intelligence_1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/09/22/us_nypd_intelligence_1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Police reportedly monitored Americans under no suspicion of wrongdoing, simply because of their ethnicity]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Police Department put American citizens under surveillance and scrutinized where they ate, prayed and worked, not because of charges of wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press.</p><p>The documents describe in extraordinary detail a secret program intended to catalog life inside Muslim neighborhoods as people immigrated, got jobs, became citizens and started businesses. The documents undercut the NYPD's claim that its officers only follow leads when investigating terrorism.</p><p>It started with one group, Moroccans, but the documents show police intended to build intelligence files on other ethnicities.</p><p>Undercover officers snapped photographs of restaurants frequented by Moroccans, including one that was noted for serving "religious Muslims." Police documented where Moroccans bought groceries, which hotels they visited and where they prayed. While visiting an apartment used by new Moroccan immigrants, an officer noted in his reports that he saw two Qurans and a calendar from a nearby mosque.</p><p>It was called the Moroccan Initiative.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/us_nypd_intelligence_1/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/us_nypd_intelligence_1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The shadow of suspicion falls in the Mall of America</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/mallofamerica/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/mallofamerica/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2011/09/07/mallofamerica</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Visitors who have done nothing wrong are winding up identified in counterterrorism reports]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
    On May 1, 2008, at 4:59 p.m., Brad Kleinerman entered the spooky world of homeland security.
</p><p>
    As he shopped for a children's watch inside the sprawling Mall of America, two security guards approached and began questioning him. Although he was not accused of wrongdoing, the guards filed a confidential report about Kleinerman that was forwarded to local police.
</p><p>
    The reason: Guards thought he might pose a threat because he had been looking at them in a suspicious way.
</p><p>
    Najam Qureshi, owner of a kiosk that sold items from his native Pakistan, also had his own experience with authorities after his father left a cellphone on a table in the food court.
</p><p>
    The consequence: An FBI agent showed up at the family's home, asking if they knew anyone who might want to hurt the United States.
</p><p>
    Mall of America officials say their security unit stops and questions on average up to 1,200 people each year. With 4.2 million square feet under one roof, the two-decade-old mall is a monument to suburban shopping and entertainment. Nearly 100,000 people from around the world pass through on a given day.
</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/mallofamerica/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/mallofamerica/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TSA introduces new technology to protect privacy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/21/us_airport_security_privacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/21/us_airport_security_privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/07/21/us_airport_security_privacy</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Images of passengers' naked bodies will no longer be used in security screenings]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Transportation Security Administration says it's installing new technology in some U.S. airports so when a traveler goes through checkpoint security, a generic outline of a person's body will be shown instead of the image of a naked body.</p><p>The agency says the change is intended to protect travelers' privacy rights while securing commercial air travel. It will be used in 40 airports, including in Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Miami and Newark.</p><p>The new software is designed to recognize items on the passenger that could pose a security threat.</p><p>The agency plans to eventually use this technology for more machines at more airports.</p><p>The whole body imaging machines have sparked outrage among passengers and privacy advocates because they reveal images of naked bodies.</p><p>------</p><p>On the Web:</p><p><a href="http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm">http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/21/us_airport_security_privacy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/21/us_airport_security_privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>British PM demands News Corp. phone hacking inquiry</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/06/eu_britain_phone_hacking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/06/eu_britain_phone_hacking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Murdoch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/07/06/eu_britain_phone_hacking</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scandal involving Rupert Murdoch's News of the World publication widens]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>British lawmakers staged an emergency debate Wednesday to vent their outrage over a widening phone hacking scandal in which a tabloid allegedly targeted missing schoolgirls and the families of London terror victims in addition to celebrities and royals.</p><p>Prime Minister David Cameron called for inquiries into the News of the World's behavior as well as into the failure of the original police inquiry to uncover the latest allegations now emerging.</p><p>London's Metropolitan Police, meanwhile, confirmed they were investigating evidence from News International, parent of the tabloid, that some officers illegally accepted payments from the newspaper in return for information.</p><p>"It is absolutely disgusting what has taken place," Cameron said, speaking in the House of Commons shortly before the debate opened. However, he said any inquiry into the News of the World would have to wait until the police investigation is concluded.</p><p>News International, the British linchpin of Rupert Murdoch's global media empire, was under intense pressure following reports that its tabloid had hacked into the cell phone of missing 13-year-old Milly Dowler in 2002, deleting messages and giving her parents and police false hope that the girl was still alive.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/06/eu_britain_phone_hacking/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/06/eu_britain_phone_hacking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can students be disciplined for online speech?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/15/students_online_speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/15/students_online_speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/15/students_online_speech</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two students win in court against school administrators; the wider implications of their victories are unclear]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." These famous words come from the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1969 case of <em>Tinker</em> v. <em>Des Moines</em>. In the decades since that sentence was written, however, new questions about students' First Amendment rights have emerged. One of the most pressing:&#160;Does a school have any right to restrict student speech when it occurs <em>beyond</em> the schoolhouse gates -- specifically, in cyberspace?</p><p>If a high-schooler uses an off-campus computer to create offensive material that relates to his or her school life -- writing nasty messages about school administrators or fellow students, for instance -- is his or her speech still protected?</p><p>On Monday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that two students -- each of whom had created an unflattering mock MySpace profile for a school official -- had been unfairly disciplined by their respective school districts. In both cases, whatever disruption the students' actions had caused was simply not profound enough to merit school involvement, the court decided. It was a victory for these students, and all others whose online speech is objectionable but not "substantially" disruptive. (For some, of course, the ruling is not so rosy: As <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/student-online-speech/">Wired</a> notes, the rights of those students who <em>do</em> seriously disrupt school life can still be restricted by administrators).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/15/students_online_speech/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/15/students_online_speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big Brother catches Brits stumbling home drunk</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/cctv/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/cctv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/09/cctv</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Closed-circuit footage of one sorry sot goes viral. But just how closely monitored is the UK?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A closed-circuit television (CCTV) <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3624317/Drunks-amazing-tumble-on-CCTV-after-Savoy-awards-bash.html">video</a> that shows an extremely drunk man staggering home through the streets of London has taken the web by storm this week (you can watch it below). Although it's primarily entertaining because of its sheer shock value, it also serves to illustrate the surprising -- and, to many, alarming -- extent of video surveillance in the U.K.</p><p>Camera coverage of London is so comprehensive that, in this particular man's case, we can follow him from a truly cinematic variety of angles -- and a full minute and a half -- as he wanders further and further from the fancy Savoy&#160;Hotel, where he had been attending an awards event.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/cctv/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/cctv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Facebook&#8217;s facial recognition tool as creepy as it seems?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/08/facebook_facial_recognition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/08/facebook_facial_recognition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Question]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/08/facebook_facial_recognition</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The social network has been learning our faces. Rep. Ed Markey joins European regulators in expressing concern]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>(Updated below: U.S. lawmaker reaction</strong>)</p><p>Facebook may have just surpassed itself in the creep-stakes. On Tuesday, security firm <a href="http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/07/facebook-privacy-settings-facial-recognition-enabled/">Sophos issued an alert</a> that Facebook has been activating facial recognition technology on accounts without fully informing users.</p><p>In December the social media leviathan announced the technology, which is designed to learn&#160; faces as they are tagged in photos. The site then makes tagging suggestions if it recognizes your face on your friends' photos in the future. Users are by default opted in to the Tag Suggestion tool and have to choose to opt out. The technology is not new -- and has been in the U.S. for months -- but the fact that it has been gradually rolled out to accounts across the world for months without users getting full warning has perturbed critics.</p><p>According to I.T. news site <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/facebook_admits_should_have_been_clearer_on_facial_recognition_tech/">the Register,</a> Facebook responded to Sophos' warning, admitting:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/08/facebook_facial_recognition/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/08/facebook_facial_recognition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My boss says: Use your real name on Facebook!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/01/facebook_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/01/facebook_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Since You Asked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked//2011/05/31/facebook</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I escaped my past. Social media threatens to bring it back]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
    <strong>Dear Cary,</strong>
  </p><p>
    <strong>I was not a popular child in elementary, junior high or high school. In fact, I was mercilessly taunted from fifth through ninth grades, and only eventually learned that the way to make it better was to be more invisible (read: less myself).</strong>
  </p><p>
    <strong>I always thought it came from being a non-Mormon in my small all-Mormon hometown in Idaho.</strong>
  </p><p>
    <strong>I left Idaho and everyone in it behind when I moved away to college. I maintain absolutely no contact with anyone there. I shook off the dust, and with the help of cosmetics, fashion and some confidence, I live a happy, shiny new life, and have for 20 years.</strong>
  </p><p>
    <strong>Enter social media. Now, I can easily find anyone from that hometown on Facebook and see all that they are up to. And if I used my real name on Facebook, they could find me too. Silly as this sounds, this chills me to the bone. Looking at Facebook is, for me, like going to a high school reunion every day. (And no, I have not gone to any real reunions.)</strong>
  </p><p>
    <strong>I don't want to be found. I don't want to reconnect.</strong>
  </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/01/facebook_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/01/facebook_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>82</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why &#8220;security&#8221; keeps winning out over privacy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The author of a new book on the privacy/security debate identifies five false arguments that erode personal freedom]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Far too often, debates about privacy and security begin with privacy proponents pointing to invasive government surveillance, such as GPS tracking, the National Security Agency surveillance program, data mining, and public video camera systems. Security proponents then chime in with a cadre of arguments about how these security measures are essential to law enforcement and national security. When the balancing is done, the security side often wins, and security measures go forward with little to no privacy protections.</p><p>But the victory for security is one often achieved unfairly. The debate is being skewed by several flawed pro-security arguments. These arguments improperly tip the scales to the security side of the balance. Let&#8217;s analyze some of these arguments, the reasons they are flawed, and the pernicious effects they have.</p><p><strong>The All-or-Nothing Fallacy</strong><br />
Many people contend that "we must give up some of our privacy in order to be more secure." In polls, people are asked whether the government should conduct surveillance if it will help in catching terrorists. Many people readily say yes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The always-expanding bipartisan Surveillance State</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/surveillance_10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/surveillance_10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 12:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2011/05/20/surveillance</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three events of the last 24 hours demonstrate how individual privacy is destroyed while government secrecy grows]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
    <strong>(updated below - Update II)</strong>
  </p><p>When I <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html">wrote earlier this week</a> about <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all">Jane Mayer's <em>New Yorker&#160;</em>article</a> on the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, the passage I hailed as "the single paragraph that best conveys the prime, enduring impact of the Obama presidency" included this observation from Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin:&#160;&#160;"<strong>We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state.</strong>"&#160; There are three events -- all incredibly from the last 24 hours -- which not only prove how true that is, but vividly highlight how it functions and why it is so odious.</p><p>First, consider what <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_go_co/us_patriot_act">Democrats and Republicans just jointly did with regard to the&#160;Patriot Act</a>, the very naming of which once sent progressives into spasms of vocal protest and which long served as the symbolic shorthand for Bush/Cheney post-9/11 radicalism:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/surveillance_10/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/surveillance_10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>331</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Men get the pervy candid camera treatment</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/10/tubecrush/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/10/tubecrush/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/05/10/tubecrush</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TubeCrush publishes cellphone shots of unknowing hot guys. Is there a double standard afoot?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I hear about candid subway photos posted online, I think of upskirt and down-the-blouse snapshots. Next, Hollaback-style captures of fondlers and flashers come to mind. But a coed group of Londoners is subjecting men to unwitting Internet objectification with TubeCrush.net, a site devoted to hot guys encountered on the Underground. User-submitted shots are posted on the site with some eyebrow-wiggling commentary (e.g. "we just know there is a six-pack under that coat") and visitors can give them a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.</p><p>It's getting a lot of coverage across the pond and, unsurprisingly, stirring up some controversy. The Guardian's Sunny Hundul <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/tubecrush-pictures-men-passengers">criticized</a> the Evening Standard's coverage of the site, which he argued was all too flippant and embraced an unfair double standard. He asked, "If the sexes had been reversed, would it have been seen so benign? Probably not." Gail Dines and Wendy J Murphy also targeted the site in a recent <a hred="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/08/slutwalk-not-sexual-liberation">Op-Ed</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/10/tubecrush/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/10/tubecrush/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>France fines Google over Street View privacy breach</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/france_privacy_google_fined/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/france_privacy_google_fined/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/21/france_privacy_google_fined</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[French regulating body hands out largest fine ever for collecting personal information from street-view cameras]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google received its first ever fine for improperly gathering and storing data for its Street View application on Monday when it was penalized by France's privacy watchdog.</p><p>The euro100,000 ($141,300) penalty -- the largest ever by French body CNIL -- sanctions Google for collecting personal data from Wi-Fi networks -- including e-mails, web browsing histories and online banking details -- from 2007 to 2010 through its roaming camera-mounted cars and bicycles.</p><p>The fine is the first against Google over the data-gathering, which more than 30 countries have complained about. At least two other European countries are considering fines, while some others have ruled against penalizing Google.</p><p>Google Inc. has apologized and says it will delete the data.</p><p>"As we have said before, we are profoundly sorry for having mistakenly collected payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks," Google's Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer said in an e-mailed statement. "As soon as we realized what had happened, we stopped collecting all Wi-Fi data from our Street View cars and immediately informed the authorities."</p><p>Google has two months to appeal the fine. It hasn't yet decided whether it will, a company spokesman said.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/france_privacy_google_fined/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/france_privacy_google_fined/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Etsy&#8217;s social media DIY-saster</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/etsy_privacy_people_search/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/etsy_privacy_people_search/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/15/etsy_privacy_people_search</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[UPDATED: The beloved craft site -- and adult product purveyor -- betrays its users' privacy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we used to think about dystopian Big Brother scenarios, the horror stemmed from an invasion of our personal lives by an all-seeing, all-knowing secret police. Who would have guessed that it would actually be free-market capitalism that exposed your secret love of extra <a href="http://www.etsy.com/listing/67189930/locking-black-leather-cuffs?ref=v1_other_2">large leather bondage cuffs</a> to the entire world?</p><p>But that's exactly what happened when <a href="http://www.etsy.com/">Etsy.com</a>, an Internet craft fair service, introduced a Facebook-style social networking system <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/unannounced_privacy_changes_ex.html">called People Search</a> last week to help buyers and sellers connect with each other and become friends (?). Here's the official announcement from <a href="http://www.etsy.com/teams/7716/announcements/discuss/6811997/">the site's forums</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p>With this new People Search tool, we're expanding on the search tool that's available in Your Circle and making it available across the whole site. Now you can search through ALL Etsy members and filter by Sellers or Non-Sellers. You even have the option to add someone to your Circle right then and there! People Search will be replacing Sellers Search in the site header search dropdown.</p>
<p>We're carrying over all of the privacy settings from Sellers Search so you can still hide your real name from search in your Profile.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/etsy_privacy_people_search/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/etsy_privacy_people_search/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government employer asks man for Facebook login during job interview</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maryland Department of Corrections asks a candidate for his Facebook password. Is this the next privacy frontier?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When do background checks go too deep?&#160;When is a routine security measure a total invasion of privacy? When Facebook is involved, suggests the American Civil Liberties Union.</p><p>The ACLU recently <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/should-employers-be-allowed-to-ask-for-your-facebook-login/71480/">sent a letter</a> to the Maryland Department of Corrections in reference to a blanket policy requiring applicants to submit social media log-ins and passwords for routine background checks, reports the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal. The letter <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2011/collinsletterfinal.pdf&amp;pli=1">details</a> the experience of Officer Robert Collins, a seven-year veteran of the department, who spoke out about the new policy after applying for a new position. In a statement for ACLU Maryland, Collins <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaX5DTmbfY">described</a> his employer's request and his reaction:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dr. Zuckerberg talks about his son Mark&#8217;s upbringing</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/mark_zuckerberg_dad_interview/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/mark_zuckerberg_dad_interview/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/02/04/mark_zuckerberg_dad_interview</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Father of the Facebook founder and CEO details the life of the young computer whiz. Hint: It involves computers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark Zuckerberg's father said in a radio interview Friday that an early exposure to computers inspired his son's interest in technology, and he encouraged parents to support their children's strengths and passions with a balance of "work and play."</p><p>"My kids all grew up around the office and were all exposed to computers," said Dr. Edward Zuckerberg, a dentist. "There are advantages to being exposed to computers early on. That certainly enriched Mark's interest in technology."</p><p>Zuckerberg said he computerized his offices in 1985. His son Mark Zuckerberg, cofounder and CEO of Facebook, was born in 1984 and was raised in the house where his father's dental offices are located in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., in suburban Westchester.</p><p>The dentist spoke for an hour on Westchester station WVOX in an interview with Paul Feiner, supervisor of Greenburgh. Dobbs Ferry is a village in the town of Greenburgh.</p><p>The dentist said his own computer science background was "limited" -- he majored in biology in college -- but he said he's "always been technologically oriented in the office" and "always had the latest high-tech toys," including an early Atari 800.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/mark_zuckerberg_dad_interview/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/mark_zuckerberg_dad_interview/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fix for anonymous sleaze is in our attitudes, not laws</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/05/fixing_anonymity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/05/fixing_anonymity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2011/01/05/fixing_anonymity</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's vital to protect anonymous speech; start by cleaning up the online cesspools]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The people who want to control online speech have won some influential allies. New York Times blogger Stanley Fish has given a <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/?ref=opinion">glowing endorsement</a> to a new <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674050891">book</a> of essays in which law professors --&#160;-- who profess to believe in free speech -- call for the curtailment of online anonymity.</p><p>Their hearts are in the right place. Parts of the Internet are cesspools of slimy speech, where anonymous cowards hide behind virtual bushes and say outrageous, untrue things about others. I've been attacked in this way, and I don't like it.</p><p>So of course anyone with a conscience wants to encourage accountability and responsibility in speech. But the key word there is "encourage," not "force."&#160;It's essential to preserve anonymity, and to appreciate why it&#8217;s vital. Anonymity protects whistle-blowers and others for whom speech can be unfairly dangerous.</p><p>If Fish's description of the book is accurate, the authors are offering a cure that is much more dangerous than the disease: They would require&#160;Internet sites to take legal responsibility for what other people post on their sites.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/05/fixing_anonymity/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/05/fixing_anonymity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

