Mark Zuckerberg: 'Facebook Opposes SOPA And PIPA'

FROM: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/mark-zuckerberg-sopa_n_1214090.html#

The Huffington Post   Catharine Smith and Ramona Emerson   

First Posted: 1/18/12 05:52 PM ET Updated: 1/18/12 05:52 PM ET

Zuck has spoken.

On Wednesday, popular websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, Google and Twitpic joined the ranks of an online protest over Congress' anti-piracy bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). For much of the day, these sites blacked out part of all of their content and posted notices urging visitors to stand against the bills, which would allow the U.S. government to shut down websites believed to be enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. According to opponents of SOPA and PIPA, the bills could hinder free speech on the web.

Social media giants Facebook and Twitter remained on the sidelines of the protest, though many had called for the sites to participate in a planned blackout. Instead, users took it upon themselves to "censor" content on their individual profiles. Elsewhere on the web, Reddit took down all of its pages and Wikipedia overlaid its articles with a notice asking users to "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge."

Despite the social network's hands-off approach to the day of protests, company CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday reiterated his company's approval of the anti-SOPA movement. In a message posted on his Facebook wall, the CEO wrote the following:

The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can't let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the internet's development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

Zuckerberg also took the protest day as an opportunity to tweet for the first time in nearly three years. Check out his tweet, below.

Facebook post could send Perth student to Bangladesh jail

FROM; http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/facebook-post-could-send-perth-student-to-bangladesh-jail-20120115-1q119.html#ixzz1jbsu2xf0

Aleisha Orr   January 15, 2012

A Curtin University student is facing the possibility of jail time in Bangladesh.

International student Muhammad Ruhul Khandaker, who is in his 20s, has been sentenced to six months in jail in his home country because of a Facebook post.

In August last year, Mr Khandaker who has been in Perth since 2009, copied and pasted a comment he had found on the internet on to his Facebook page.

Curtin University Guild president Ali Kirke said the comment was about drivers licences being given to unqualified drivers.

"He put a comment on his Facebook that the Bangladeshi government thought spoke against the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, then he got charges put against him and sentenced for not appearing in court," she said

Ms Kirke said Mr Khandaker was now fearful of having to return to Bangladesh.

"He is on a student visa at the moment, which I think is due to expire in about six months, once he’s finished studying, he will have to return to Bangladesh."

Ms Kirke said the Guild supported Mr Khandaker in his request to the Immigration Department to grant him a protection visa.

"We want international students to feel welcome and safe," she said.

"I'm all for free speech; it creates debate and gets questions answered.

"Facebook is a social forum, I believe it is important everyone has a way to express themselves and if we start to censor what we put on Facebook, there is a danger we will lose that free speech."

Ms Kirke said Mr Khandaker’s request for a protection visa had not been successful.

"They have told him to wait and see if the situation back home calms down," she said.

Judging Facebook relationships

Should jurists hear cases involving their 'friends'?

FROM: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/mc-watchdog-judges-facebook-20120114,0,2268523,full.column

Paul Muschick

The Watchdog

10:25 PM EST, January 14, 2012

What is and isn't an appropriate use of Facebook and other social media usually is for the court of public opinion to decide.

But this week in Philadelphia, the question will be decided in a court of law.

Prosecutors want Philadelphia municipal court Judge Charles Hayden to recuse himself from hearing the drunken-driving case of state Rep. Cherelle Parker of Philadelphia because they are friends on Facebook.

Hayden has refused, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

The matter isn't the first and won't be the last time a Pennsylvania judge's credibility has been questioned because of social media. This case, though, is higher profile because Hayden already has ruled in Parker's favor in a key decision by suppressing some of the evidence against her.

Judges should be reining in their use of Facebook because as dispensers of justice, they must avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety. Even a superficial Facebook relationship can create that appearance.

"If it comes out in the course of a trial that that judge has friended one side or the other or one attorney or the other … it can create the perception that there is a relationship," said Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a nonpartisan nonprofit seeking to reform the court system.

While a state judicial committee is studying the issue as part of a broader ethics review, some judges already are doing what they can to avoid getting tangled in sticky Web issues.

"I defriended just about everybody on my Facebook," Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano said.

Dumping about 150 people wasn't easy, considering that unlike many Facebook users, he actually knows a lot of the people he was Facebook friends with, including lawyers. He wanted to avoid questions about his impartiality should those lawyers have cases before him.

"I think it makes people uncomfortable," Giordano said.

New Allentown District Judge Michael D'Amore is aware, too. In a recent article in The Morning Call, he said he's had to change how he uses Facebook "and delete and stop posting certain things and be careful with the things I do post."

Giordano said he knows of two other Northampton County judges who are on Facebook.

In Lehigh County, President Judge Carol McGinley told me she surveyed judges at a recent lunch and none of those in attendance, which was almost the entire bench, uses Facebook.

She said there are no county court rules against judges using Facebook, but she believes "it's a risky thing for a judge to do."

"It provides accessibility to the judge by people who shouldn't for one reason or another be able to access the judge," she said. "It risks the appearance and the reality of impartiality through inadvertent contact."

Lehigh County Judge Edward D. Reibman is among the non-users. He is ethics committee chairman of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges.

Reibman said no judge has asked the committee about social media issues, but the committee has invited a social media expert to explain how Facebook and similar venues work, and what judges might want to consider before using them.

He seconded Giordano's concern about judges having Facebook friendships with lawyers because other lawyers could question those connections.

He said judges can head off potential questions by disclosing social media or other social relationships with lawyers as some already do if they are golfing or family friends. Some lawyers might be fine practicing before a judge they know has a connection with opposing counsel, while others may not.

"Every judge has friends who are lawyers." Reibman said. "They practiced law with them, they were former associates."

The question becomes what, if anything, must be done if there is even a tenuous connection.

In the Philadelphia case, Hayden ruled there was no reason to recuse himself just because he is a Facebook friend of Parker. He said the situation is no different than if he and the representative attended the same church.

"The underlying issues are the same as they have been from the beginning of our courts," Hayden wrote in a November opinion. "We just have to use our critical thinking skills and common sense instead of getting hung up in the technology. How well do you know the person? Do you interact with them often? Do you consider them a friend?"

Parker's attorney has said the two do not know each other offline, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Hayden agreed to a request from Parker's lawyer to suppress evidence from the traffic stop. Hayden questioned the officers' ability to determine whether Parker was intoxicated and if there was probable cause to arrest her, according to court records.

Police stopped Parker at 12:18 a.m. April 30 after seeing her state-issued vehicle swerving and traveling the wrong way on a one-way street, court records say.

The attorney general's office is prosecuting the case. In its appeal to Philadelphia common pleas court, the attorney general's office says Hayden should recuse himself because his Facebook relationship with Parker "creates an appearance of impropriety and undermines public confidence in the judiciary."

That impropriety is "amplified" by Hayden's ruling against the arresting officers, which was based on facts "wholly lacking in evidence," the appeal says.

"The 'Facebook friendship' … in combination with the court's unsupported factual findings, raise a substantial doubt as to the jurist's ability to preside impartially," the appeal says.

The attorney general's office is prosecuting instead of the Philadelphia district attorney's office because the Web relationships in this case are even more tangled. The DA is Facebook and real-life friends with Parker and pulled his office off the case.

More details about this and another case in Cumberland County are on my blog at http://blogs.mcall.com/watchdog/. I will update the blog later with the results of Tuesday's hearing.

The Watchdog is published Thursdays and Sundays. Contact me by email at watchdog@mcall.com, by phone at 610-841-2364 (ADOG), by fax at 610-820-6693, or by mail at The Morning Call, 101 N. Sixth St., Allentown, PA, 18101. Follow me on Twitter at mcwatchdog and on Facebook at Morning Call Watchdog.

Copyright © 2012, The Morning Call

Author of U.S. online piracy bill vows not to buckle

FROM: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-internet-piracy-idUSTRE80C04T20120113

By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO | Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:37pm EST

 

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - The lawmaker behind a bill to combat online piracy vowed on Thursday to press ahead in the face of fierce criticism from Internet giants such as Google and Facebook.

 

"It is amazing to me that the opponents apparently don't want to protect American consumers and businesses," Republican Representative Lamar Smith told Reuters in a telephone interview.

 

"Are they somehow benefitting by directing customers to these foreign websites? Do they profit from selling advertising to these foreign websites? And if they do, they need to be stopped. And I don't mind taking that on."

 

The Stop Online Piracy Act, which is before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee chaired by Smith, aims to fight online piracy of pharmaceuticals, music and other consumer products by allowing the Department of Justice to seek federal court injunctions against foreign-based websites.

 

Smith said Internet counterfeiters cost American consumers, businesses, inventors and workers some $100 billion a year, though critics accuse him of exaggerating.

 

Under the bill, if a judge agrees that websites offer material that violates U.S. copyright laws, Internet service providers could be required to block access to foreign sites and U.S. online ad networks could be required to stop ads and search engines barred from directly linking to them.

 

Heavyweights such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit oppose the bill, which came under fire at this week's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

 

Reddit chief executive Alexis Ohanian has said it would "cripple the Internet" and pledged to take his social media site dark for one day next week to protest the bill.

 

"This (SOPA) could potentially obliterate the entire tech industry - a job-creating industry," Ohanian wrote on his blog.

 

Smith stressed the bill would only affect websites based outside the United States and criticized opponents for failing to cite specific sections, saying many have failed to read it and were disguising their economic interests with rhetoric about Internet freedom.

 

Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt told the Economic Club of Washington last month that the bill would "effectively break the Internet" and he compared Smith's efforts to the same type of censorship that Google has experienced in China.

 

"There are some companies like Google that make money by directing consumers to these illegal websites," Smith said. "So I don't think they have any real credibility to complain even though they are the primary opponent."

 

Smith has received numerous awards from conservative organizations for his opposition to efforts to expand the federal government's power.

 

But the Texas representative says giving Washington sweeping powers over the Internet is necessary to protect free enterprise.

 

Smith predicted the bill would pass the House. It was about halfway through the process of committee hearings and could go to the House floor in a matter a weeks, he said. The Senate was considering a similar measure.

(Editing by Daniel Trotta and Xavier Briand)

Google, Facebook Appeal in India After Ordered to Remove Content

FROM: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248009/google_facebook_appeal_in_india_after_ordered_to_remove_content.html

By John Ribeiro, IDG News

Google and Facebook filed petitions before the Delhi High Court after a lower court asked them and other Internet companies to remove certain objectionable content from their websites.

Google has stated to the High Court that the Indian operation cannot be held responsible for its websites, which are run by the parent company in the U.S., said SPM Tripathi, lawyer for Vinay Rai, the petitioner before the lower court.

Rai, who is the editor of a newspaper called Akbari, said that he is opposed to inflammatory religious content on some Internet websites.

Google confirmed that it filed a petition before the High Court. "We can't comment further at this stage," it said in a statement. Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google's petition is in line with the stand often adopted by Internet companies when sued in Indian courts over online content: they pass the responsibility to their parent companies in the U.S., saying that they run the websites.

The company also argued before the High Court that it was not physically possible for all the content that is posted on websites by third-parties to be monitored, Tripathi said.

India's Information Technology Act requires intermediaries like ISPs to remove content that is found objectionable within a period of 36 hours of being notified of the content. Intermediaries are also required to warn users against posting or uploading a variety of objectionable content in their user agreements and other rules and regulations.

India's Minister for Communications and IT, Kapil Sibal, said in December in interviews to local TV channels that requests by his ministry for removal of content from some websites have gone unheeded by Internet companies. These companies also declined to provide information on who had posted the content.

Sibal was responding to newspaper reports that he had asked Internet companies to pre-screen objectionable content before it was posted online. The minister denied that he had expected that, but wanted the Internet companies to evolve a framework whereby content that was objectionable or inflammatory could be quickly removed. Some of the Internet companies were allowing content that would fail to live up to the laws that they are enforcing in their own country by their own community standards, he said.

The High Court on Thursday asked Google and Facebook to respond to the summons by the lower court, and fixed the next hearing for Monday, Tripathi said. "Like China, we will block all such web sites," High Court Judge Suresh Kait said while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism to keep a check and remove "offensive and objectionable" material from their web pages, reported news agency, Press Trust of India.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

Is it OK for teachers and students to be Facebook friends?

FROM: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/08/4170782/is-it-ok-for-teachers-and-students.html

mgutierrez@sacbee.com

Published Sunday, Jan. 08, 2012

High school teacher Jennifer Kennedy has a prepared response for students who send her "friend" requests on Facebook.

No. Or, at least not until they graduate.

It's a rule she said she shares with fellow teachers at Sacramento New Technology High School.

Increasingly, school district officials across the region and throughout the country are coming up with their own guidelines for what kind of online and electronic communication is acceptable between teachers and students.

Is it OK to be Facebook friends?

What about direct messages on Twitter?

Or text messaging from personal cellphones?

"We have a generation of kids who communicate this way," said Kennedy, who teaches sophomores and seniors. "If you say absolutely no Facebook or texting, you are cutting off an important relationship with students."

In districts with policies against such behavior, officials have said social media sites blur the line between the professional and private lives of teachers. And then there are the rare but widely reported allegations of abuse initiated or intensified through social media.

Last year, a McClatchy High School teacher pleaded no contest to charges he inappropriately touched a 16-year-old student. A police investigation found more than 1,200 messages between Brian Aguilar and the female victim. Aguilar is no longer employed by the Sacramento City Unified School District.

Those are the kind of abuses that have led some districts and states to step in.

Missouri passed a bill last year that banned electronic communication between teachers and students, but lawmakers revised the law after a judge warned it infringed on free speech. Now school boards have been asked to pen their own social media guidelines by March 1.

The Dayton Public School District in Ohio banned teachers from "friending" students on social networking sites or sending texts or instant messages.

Locally, Folsom Cordova Unified School District has adopted a new policy, which advises teachers not to add students as friends on a personal Facebook page and to avoid contacting students privately on a social media site or through text messaging.

"The policy is designed to articulate our expectations," said district spokesman Stephen Nichols. "There needs to be more dialogue about this. It's not going away."

Twin Rivers Unified School District is working on a policy that will address online and electronic communication between teachers and students, said district spokeswoman Trinette Marquis.

"We realize this is something we need to have in place," said Marquis, who added that the policy will likely provide guidelines for appropriate uses but not bar the use of it.

Elk Grove Unified and Sacramento City Unified do not have policies in place.

"It's something we've been exploring," said Elizabeth Graswich, spokeswoman for Elk Grove Unified.

Luther Burbank High School teacher Larry Ferlazzo said he'd like to see some training and guidelines, but that "it's pretty shortsighted" for districts to adopt policies forbidding online communication through social media sites.

Ferlazzo said he has exchanged school-related text messages with students and has previously friended a current student on Facebook, but his page is not a personal page. It mostly promotes his popular education blog.

"Obviously, there will be stories of abuses or inappropriate stuff, but that could be the case with any tool," Ferlazzo said. "If one student feels more comfortable contacting a teacher that way for a recommendation or about a homework assignment, why not?"

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Does Facebook’s Timeline Violate Its FTC Settlement?

FROM: http://mashable.com/2012/01/06/facebook-timeline-epic/

1 day ago by Kate Freeman

Facebook may be in hot water over privacy again. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest group, has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possible privacy violations in the new Facebook Timeline feature.

“Facebook is changing the privacy settings of its users in a way that gives the company far greater ability to disclose their personal information than in the past,” the group wrote. “With Timeline, Facebook has once again taken control over the user’s data from the user, and now made information that was essentially archived and inaccessible widely available without the consent of the user.”

The first time EPIC asked the FTC to look into Facebook‘s privacy practices, it resulted in a two-year legal battle that ended late last year with a landmark settlement between the social networking behemoth and the FTC.

This second complaint, sent on Dec. 27, points to the new Timeline feature, saying it violates the November settlement prohibiting “Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, and requires that the company get consumers’ approval before it changes the way it shares their data.”

Timeline began rolling out to users on Dec. 6. It completely changes the way a Facebook user’s information is displayed, highlighting significant events in the user’s life from the present back to when they first signed up (or even earlier if the user inputs that data). Facebook gives you seven days to edit and refine your Timeline, without anyone else seeing it, once you enable it. This way, you can delete photos or posts you don’t want others to see.

The first complaint EPIC made in 2009 called out Facebook for promising to keep users’ information private while actually making it available to third parties. In some instances, the site had allowed advertisers to obtain personal information from users who clicked on ads. The government accused Facebook of “unfair and deceptive” practices.

Some heavy-hitters signed the initial complaint EPIC made against Facebook, including the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, American Library Association, the Center for Digital Democracy and Patient Privacy Rights.

The November settlement forbids Facebook from changing their privacy settings without expressed consumer consent. Nor can Facebook share more of a consumer’s information than that individual’s privacy settings allow. In addition, every two years for the next 20 years, Facebook’s privacy settings will be audited by an unbiased third party. The first FTC audit is in May.

After the settlement was finalized, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted the company made “bunch of mistakes,” and blamed the error on “poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago.” He also assured consumers of the company’s dedication to transparency.

EPIC wasn’t satisfied with that settlement, calling it “insufficient to address the concerns originally identified by EPIC and the consumer coalition, as well as those findings established by the Commission.”

Facebook has more than 800 million users, many of whom have grown increasingly aware of the importance of online security. Are you concerned about your privacy within Facebook Timeline? Tell us in the comments.

Bangladesh government to collect info of social site users

FROM: http://www.weeklyblitz.net/2062/bangladesh-government-to-collect-info-of-social

by Sohail Choudhury
January 6, 2012

Following massive growth of internet users as well as increased number of users of various social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Linkedln, Google+ etc, Bangladesh government is set to instruct local or overseas offices of the social networking sites to provide detailed information along with photograph of each of the users from Bangladesh. It may be mentioned here that, a university teacher named Ruhul Kabir Khandakar, who is now in Australia for higher studies was convicted to six months in prison by the High Court division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court, as his comments reportedly implied he wanted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to die. Detail reports. Ruhul Khandakar was found guilty in absentia of contempt of court after he did not return from Australia, where he is studying, in response to a court summons.

Ruhul Khandakar's post in Facebook came on the heels of the death of one of the country's popular film maker Tareq Masud and broadcast personality Mishuk Munier in a tragic road accident in August last year. "Tareq Masud and Mishuk Munier died as a result of government giving license to unqualified drivers. Many die, why does not Sheikh Hasina die," Khandakar's post reportedly read.

Meanwhile, a sensitive intelligence agency in Bangladesh has set up special wing exclusively to monitor comments and other activities in the social networking sites from Bangladesh. It may be mentioned here that, currently the number of users of Facebook from the country exceeds 2.6 million. Comparing these nearest countries by penetration of Facebook users shows that Bangladesh has 0.07% higher FB penetration than Yemen and 0.02% lower FB penetration than Benin.

The largest age group is currently 18 - 24 with total of 1 102 882 users, followed by the users in the age of 25 - 34. There are 76% male users and 24% female users in Bangladesh, compared to 48% and 52% in Bulgaria and 49% and 51% in Denmark.

Seeking anonymity, a source within Bangladeshi intelligence agency told Weekly Blitz that the government is concerned at the increasing trend of anti-government comments and activities within the social networking sites, especially with video uploads by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party activists as well as activists of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which in most cases are filled with provocative comments against the ruling Bangladesh Awami League. It said, following the consequences of the anti-establishment activities in the social networking sites particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and the Arab countries, Bangladesh's ruling party pays special emphasis on putting "certain level of control and accountability" in the social networking sites. "We cannot let these sites be greatly abused by the users in spreading false propaganda against the government", the source said.

The source further indicated that, on receiving details about the accounts holders with the social networking sites, Bangladesh government may suggest on a time-to-time basis to suspend some accounts, making "offensive comments on the government" as well as may continue taking legal actions against those users. It may be mentioned here that, Bangladesh government earlier blocked YouTube and Facebook for containing "anti government" contents.

Google And Facebook Face Indian Censorship Challenges

FROM: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/01/05/google-and-facebook-face-indian-censorship-challenges/print/

Google And Facebook Face Indian Censorship Challenges

Trefis Team, Contributor

While Google has been at odds with the Chinese establishment over web censorship, the company may face similar issues in India as well. The latest court order to social sites such as Facebook and Google to remove objectionable content may set a worrying precedent for excessive Internet regulation in the country and slow the growth of these juggernauts in some of the world’s most populous countries. ^[1]

See our full analysis for Google’s stock

Is “Moderate Regulation” Even an Option?

To this point, the Indian government has tried to assure users that it does not intend to censor but rather plans to “regulate” defamatory or inflammatory content about Indian leaders and/or religious matters. Mere regulation seems unfeasible, especially considering the amount of information that goes into the web daily. This leaves the ominous option of a possible screening (or banning) some content on the web, a move that would invite considerable opposition from a democratic nation like India.

Given the public outcry against such moves, the Indian establishment has softened its stance on this. However, the recent court order that applies to big names such as Google, Facebook and Yahoo highlights the risk that these companies face in India.

It would probably take a collective effort from users, websites and social networks to attempt to self-regulation on the Internet, before even harsher censorship measures come into effect.

We currently have a price estimate near $628 for Google’s stock, which is in line with the current market price.

Go to https://www.trefis.com/forecastWidget?ticker=GOOG

Here's why (real) casino Facebook games might explode in 2012

FROM: http://blog.games.com/2012/01/02/casino-facebook-games-2012/

by Joe Osborne, Posted Jan 2nd 2012 9:30AM

A recent Department of Justice opinion has effectively allowed states to individually allow online gambling and lottery services, with Washington D.C. to be first in line, The Washington Times reports. In other words, a lot of Americans are going to find themselves strapped for cash this year, if enough states follow suit. And seriously, what state is going to refuse free tax money?

The new opinion is an interpretation of The Wire Act of 1961 that was essentially revisited to address whether Illinois and New York could allow out-of-state organizations to sell lottery tickets to residents online, according to The Times. (For a primer on the history of online gambling in the U.S., check out this page.) However, it appears that a few states have taken this interpretation as a green light for online, non-sports gambling.
"We always knew it was legal. It didn't come as a shock to us," independent D.C. Council member Michael A. Brown told The Times. "But other states might beat us to the punch, and that would be a tragedy. I'm hopeful we still will be the first to the marketplace. Frankly [other states] have said, 'We're just going to take D.C.'s legislation and copy it.'"

Those other states include Nevada and New Jersey, both of which reportedly begun to lay the groundwork for online gambling within their borders. This all sounds like quite the coincidence to the arguably already-explosive growth of casino games on Facebook, like DoubleDown Casino and Slotomania. Just look at Facebook's take on the top 10 social games of 2011.

More importantly, however, is that the big time social game players are keen on the genre, too. Both Zynga and PopCap plan to hit it big with casino games on Facebook. (Though, the latter is just a rumor.) Not to mention that Caesars now has its own Facebook game company. Of course, this all depends on whether Facebook gives the green light. But again, what social network is going to refuse free tax money?

Stop Online Piracy Act: What You Need to Know [INFOGRAPHIC]

FROM:http://mashable.com/2011/11/16/sopa-infographic/

Wondering what’s going on with the Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as SOPA? Here’s an infographic that boils it all down to the key points for you.

Protests against the bill now under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives have reached a fever pitch today, kicked off by a letter from Facebook, Google, Twitter, eBay, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL and Zynga to congressional sponsors of the bill. That letter appeared in The New York Times as a full-page ad on Wednesday.

There’s a hearing on that bill going on today (Nov. 16) in the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has a good chance of passage, because it’s backed by powerful corporate interests and bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.

Among its proponents are the Motion Picture Association of America, union representatives such as the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO who say it might save jobs, and U.S. Registrar of Copyrights Maria Pallante. According to Talking Points Memo, Pallante said in the hearing today, “It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail.”

In opposition to that bill, public petitions are circulating, urging President Obama to veto the legislation, known by its opponents as the “E-Parasite Act.”

As with any bill, it’s complicated, but this infographic boils it down. An activist group organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Creative Commons, Mozilla, Public Knowledge, the Free Software Foundation and others who oppose the bill, created the infographic.

Google, Facebook and more mull anti-SOPA blackout

FROM: http://www.slashgear.com/google-facebook-and-more-mull-anti-sopa-blackout-02205414/

Google, eBay, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal and other big-name sites are contemplating a complete, coordinated blackout in an attempt to call users to arms over SOPA, the Stop Online Privacy Act. “There have been some serious discussions about that” Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition group of anti-SOPA organizations told CNET, with the so-called ‘nuclear option’ also being considered by Wikipedia and others.

Such a move would echo that of microblogging platform tumblr, which prompted almost 90,000 calls to US Representatives last month after intentionally blacking out its service to users. Those visiting their tumblr page, or that of other users, were faced with a message warning of the potential impact of SOPA and offering to connect them with their Representative to discuss their concerns and opposition.

Some of the biggest names online penned an open letter to regulators midway through last month, decrying SOPA as poorly thought through. The Senate will debate the act again on January 24, giving the NetCoalition members plenty of opportunity to stage their blackout and prompt online shoppers, video junkies, bloggers and more to get in touch and be heard.

Customers’ Public Social Data Isn’t Yours

FROM:http://www.1to1media.com/view.aspx?docid=33330

Customers may post rafts of personal information on social media, but that doesn’t mean they want companies using it. Here are five steps for marketers to balance customers’ expectations for privacy with the availability of data for relevant marketing.

Social media has revolutionized the way people share information. Social media users are posting information about themselves on a plethora of networks, creating a record of their likes and dislikes, their habits and interests, places they visit, and more. And according to Nielsen research, four out of every five active Internet users visit social networks and blogs. That adds up to a bounty of customer insight waiting to be harvested.

Increasingly companies are doing just that: using social networking sites to learn more about customers and prospects, so they can deliver more targeted marketing. However, these firms must tread carefully and respect customers' privacy, or risk a customer backlash.

A recent Poll Position survey reveals that nearly 70 percent of U.S. Facebook users are comfortable with the personal information they share on the network. Yet, research by Barracuda Labs found that more than 50 percent of social media users in 21 countries are unhappy with Facebook's privacy controls; and 30 percent and 29 percent of respondents are displeased with the privacy controls on Twitter and Google+, respectively. Although LinkedIn appears to be the most trusted social network, 25 percent of respondents voiced unhappiness with its privacy controls. The discrepancy in consumers' willingness to share personal information with their concern for privacy is where the challenge lies for marketers.

Organizations that use customer data to proactively build trust with their customers are the ones that will have the most success. In their upcoming book, Extreme Trust: Honesty as a Competitive Advantage, Peppers & Rogers Group founding partners Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, Ph.D., argue that because of the rising volume and speed of interactions, people's standards of what constitutes trustworthy behavior are increasing. Thus, it's no longer sufficient for companies to simply respect the terms published on their website. "Now, you have to proactively protect the customer's interest," Peppers says. For example, Amazon uses customer purchase data to alert customers when they try to order a book that they've already bought from the company.

Once companies show that they care about their customers' privacy and have their best interests in mind, clients are more likely to share information because they know it will be used responsibly, says Dennis Dayman, chief privacy and security officer at Eloqua. Peppers adds that privacy as we viewed it in the 20th century is dead. Social has made personal information more public than ever. "But this doesn't mean that people won't be worried about protecting their security," he says.

According to experts, companies can take a number of precautions to ensure that they don't overstep their bounds when using customer information available via social media. Here are five recommendations:

1. Be transparent and fair: Many companies require customers to agree to a privacy policy, which outlines how the information they share will be used or communicated to third parties. However, most of these policies are long and fraught with legal terms, meaning that even the customers who bother to read them don't always understand them. Dayman says companies need to communicate information in a way that customers will find easy to understand. Moreover, businesses should regularly inform customers how they're using the information they have provided.

Andrew Walls, security, risk, and privacy research director at Gartner, says it's essential to give customers the ability to both update information about themselves and opt out of receiving marketing messages. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, Walls notes. Companies will displease or even anger customers by using information inappropriately, especially when customers have agreed to privacy policies they don't understand. "Use common sense," recommends Raghu Raghavan, Act-On's CEO. "If you don't want something to happen to you, then don't do it to a customer.

2. Put the customer in the driver's seat: Customers want to feel that they have control over the information that companies have access to and how it's used. This includes giving customers a choice about the frequency of contacts they have with a particular company, for example, how often they receive a newsletter or other marketing material. Peppers of Peppers & Rogers Group argues that allowing customers to feel in control will lead to increased trust in that company. Subsequently, customers will be more likely to share more about themselves with that particular company.

3. Education is essential: Despite using social media on a daily basis, many customers are unaware of how the data they're sharing can be seen and used by third parties—and, consequently, may feel that their privacy is violated when they're contacted by a company for marketing purposes. Eloqua's Dayman says companies have an important role in educating customers, starting with giving straightforward information about their policies.

4. Only collect what you need: Social media has made more detailed customer information available than ever before, so some organizations are accumulating as much social data as possible, even when they don't need it. This "just in case" mentality can work against a company. "The easiest way to secure information is not to have it in the first place," Gartner's Walls says.

5. Be relevant: Companies need to keep in mind that every customer is different and tailor any marketing information to their preferences. "The only way to use data is by making communication relevant," Act-On's Raghavan says. For example, customers don't want to see an advertisement about a completely unrelated product pop up when searching online for something specific, nor receive information related to their profession on their private email address. Raghavan says using information out of context constitutes misuse.

Despite its challenges, social media gives companies a unique opportunity to build trust, says Rick Mans, social media strategist at Capgemini. By using publically available customer data, companies can improve the relevancy of their marketing. However, if they misuse that information companies could lose their customers' trust, and their business, and are unlikely to regain either quickly, if at all.

'Clean up your website': Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove 'anti-religious' content

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081078/Clean-website-Indian-court-orders-Facebook-Google-remove-anti-religious-content.html#ixzz1iIHR3stV

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.

On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.

Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.

Qasmi had objected to a number of images on the websites which he complained would cause 'irreparable loss and injury to the people who are offended by them'.

He argued that some of the images defamed Hindu gods, Prophet Mohammed and other religious figures, India Today website reported.

The order will raise serious questions about how users' posts and opinions will be edited, censorship and freedom of expression.

On December 22 Judge Kumar had issued summonses to the social networking sites, demanding they remove photographs, videos or texts that might offend religious sentiments, the Hindustan Times website reported.

The order comes a day after a criminal court issued summonses to the sites for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.

Santosh Pandey, appearing for complainant Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, told The Hindu Times after the court hearing that the websites have to submit a report to the court by February 6 describing the action they had taken to remove the contents from the websites.

Representatives of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd and Microsoft told the court that they had not got copies of the order and complaint against them, but Qasmi's counsel told the court that he would supply the relevant documents to them, according to the Hindustan Times.

The order comes at a controversial time as IT minister Kapil Sibal had recently discussed with representatives of some of the companies ways to guarantee the offensive contents are not posted.

India Today quoted him as saying: 'There were some demeaning, degrading, clearly pornographic depictions of gods and goddesses which no reasonable, sensible person anywhere in the world would accept, on any site.

The minister insisted he was not smothering free speech but was suggesting screening possible 'incendiary' material.

The Hindu Times reported Facebook India, Facebook, Google India Pvt Ltd, Google Orkut, Youtube, Blogspot, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd, Microsoft, Zombie Time, Exboii, Boardreader, IMC India, My Lot, Shyni Blog and Topix were all given the order.

A Google spokesperson told the website: 'We comply with valid court orders wherever possible, consistent with our long standing policy.

'We're yet to receive the details of this order and can't comment on this specific case.'

Facebook complicated for public officials

FROM: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120101/ARTICLE/120109975/2055/NEWS?p=all&tc=pgall

By Carrie Wells
carrie.wells@heraldtribune.com
Published: Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.

Public officials might have more to worry about with Facebook than just an embarrassing picture from college resurfacing.

Seemingly innocuous posts could become minefields of litigation under Florida's tough public records laws, which require everything on an elected official's or government's page to be carefully catalogued. If elected officials are caught chatting about anything which may come up later for a vote, they could land themselves in legal trouble.

A number of local governments have been cautious to embrace the social networking site for these reasons, but are slowly warming up to it, seeing the potential to promote themselves and connect with the public. Citizens here, too, are beginning to use Facebook to discuss controversial topics, like term limits for elected officials.

Public officials could run afoul of the law with something as simple as when a "friend" posts something on their page and they have no system in place to archive it.

At a recent Sarasota County Commission board retreat, most commissioners said they were in no hurry to give in to Facebook.

"It's too risky," Commissioner Jon Thaxton said. "We're vulnerable just sitting here and doing email. I'm frustrated with my Facebook page. If I was not in this office I would not have a Facebook page because the postings and all...it's enough to drive a person crazy."

Attorney General Bill McCollum issued an opinion in 2009 that postings on social media sites be considered the same as other public records and must follow regular retention schedules. And what can be a typical exchange on a social media site, such as two commissioners posting about a topic that could come up for a vote at a public meeting later, could qualify as a violation of Forida's Government in the Sunshine law.

The Florida Bar Journal this year called the issue of social media used by public officials or governments a "minefield of litigation" and warned against the potential for costly lawsuits.

But governments and elected officials are increasingly trying to expand their use of the site, seeing potential in connecting with residents — especially seniors, the fastest-growing group of Facebook users.

Sarasota County last week launched a new Facebook page, called Sarasota County Community Connections, as well as another for hurricane information. But as is the case with other local governments, comments from the public on the page are not encouraged.

Creating a buzz

Barbara Peterson, president of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, said some local governments have struggled to adapt. Professional Facebook pages by governments or elected officials have to be open to everyone, and friend requests cannot be denied, she said.

"It is a great way to get your message out there," Peterson said. Still, she added, "I would caution them to separate out their professional Facebook page from their private Facebook page."

But even that can cause problems. In May, two Miami Lakes councilmen came under fire when one posted a message on his personal Facebook page asking his friends, which included the other councilman, to support a measure he liked. A citizen asked a state corruption prosecutor to look into the matter.

This region has been slower than others in Florida to embrace social media, but that is starting to change.

While use by younger people has slowed, older people — the regions biggest population — have become the fastest-growing group using social media.

Close to half of Internet users aged 50-64 and more than one in four users age 65 and older now use social networking sites, according to a study done last year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Only 25 percent of Internet users 50-64 and 13 percent of those 65 and older reported using social media just a year before, the study found.

Seeking an easy public forum to discuss the recent issue of whether county commissioners should be limited to a certain number of terms, a number of local activists went with Facebook. The group quickly attracted more than 200 members.

Sarasota County Commissioner Christine Robinson said she used to fill her private Facebook page with opinions on local issues. Robinson said she has since steered clear of that for fear of running afoul of the law.

"That's why I don't post on it so often since I became a commissioner," she said. "I used to post in it quite often."

Now, she mostly uses her private account to share pictures of her young children with friends, but is very enthusiastic about having the county help her set up a professional page soon.

"I think it's an incredible opportunity to create a buzz about Sarasota County," she said.