cowboy me, 2.0: jose nazario beauty and the street


Four short links: 9 June 2013



Bessemer Venture Partners, Massachusetts Bay Colony, closed circuit television, Barack Obama slams

From zero to half-a-billion: CEO Jeff Lawson writes the perfect story for Twilio ... -- Despite strong competition from more entrenched companies , Twilio kept plugging along. Twilio embraced the hackathons with gusto and became an active participant where there was a hackathon, there was Twilio. I remember seeing Danielle Morrill , one of the early Twilio employees pretty much at every hackathon I attended carrying the proverbial company flag. It may be voice, it may be video or it may be text, but Lawson (while not committing to anything beyond expressing interest in video) expects Twilio to be there on the back end enabling developers to offer communication with a minimum of fuss. I recently came across a company called SendHub , that has built a brian-dead simple phone and messaging system that marries two crucial trends bring your own device and distributed workforces.

Lobster today is viewed as a delicacy, but it was once so reviled that indenture ... -- In 1622, the governor of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford, was embarrassed to admit to newly arrived colonists that the only food they could presente their friends with was a lobster without bread or anyhting else but a cupp of fair water (original spelling preserved).

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide' - The Chronicle Review - ... -- By Daniel J. The Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty expresses a similar idea when he argues: "There is no sentient human being in the Western world who has little or no regard for his or her personal privacy; In a less extreme form, the nothing-to-hide argument refers not to all personal information but only to the type of data the government is likely to collect. Retorts to the nothing-to-hide argument about exposing people's naked bodies or their deepest secrets are relevant only if the government is likely to gather this kind of information. Nearly every law or policy involving privacy depends upon a particular understanding of what privacy is. Your privacy can also be invaded if the government compiles an extensive dossier about you. People don't acknowledge certain problems, because those problems don't fit into a particular one-size-fits-all conception of privacy. Regardless of whether we call something a "privacy" problem, it still remains a problem, and problems shouldn't be ignored. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. It is a structural problem, involving the way people are treated by government institutions and creating a power imbalance between people and the government. The second is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the program outweigh the privacy sacrifice. The first justification influences the second, because the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. For example, the University of South Carolina law professor Ann Bartow argues that in order to have a real resonance, privacy problems must "negatively impact the lives of living, breathing human beings beyond simply provoking feelings of unease." She says that privacy needs more "dead bodies," and that privacy's "lack of blood and death, or at least of broken bones and buckets of money, distances privacy harms from other [types of harm]." Those advancing the nothing-to-hide argument have in mind a particular kind of appalling privacy harm, one in which privacy is violated only when something deeply embarrassing or discrediting is revealed. But if this is the standard to recognize a problem, then few privacy problems will be recognized. Privacy is not a horror movie, most privacy problems don't result in dead bodies, and demanding evidence of palpable harms will be difficult in many cases. In this respect, privacy problems resemble certain environmental harms, which occur over time through a series of small acts by different actors. It represents a singular and narrow way of conceiving of privacy, and it wins by excluding consideration of the other problems often raised with government security measures. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say.

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me | News Blogs - CNET News -- The front-running Democrat in the New Hampshire primary makes the promise in one last stump speech at an election day rally with the Facebook generation. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

This post is auto generated by @hacktweetnews

|

----

next Monday, Jun 10, 2013 @ 12:08am | previous Sunday, Jun 09, 2013 @ 12:08am | archives

Last modified: Sunday, Jun 09, 2013 @ 04:05am
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Your Ad Here

copyright © 2002-2005 jose nazario, all rights reserved.