121–130 of 144 posts
People talk about stealth candidates in politics. I suspect that phrase will take on new meaning in the future. We'll have candidates whose histories will have been protected from public knowledge in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, that's the problem. As a general rule, driving without a seatbelt is also pretty safe.. until it's not. The question is whether the advantage you get from something is bigger than the potential consequences. I'd say, given the historical track record of governments during the last 100 years, that it's very gullible to believe that whatever future problems our current data sharing will cause will somehow be "fixe…
"I'd say, given the historical track record of governments during the last 100 years, that it's very gullible to believe that whatever future problems our current data sharing will cause will somehow be "fixed" and not have consequences just as long as it affects a critical mass of the population." For that matter, parts of our government like the NSA and the DEA consider the over-sharing of personal data on Facebook…
This seems incredibly odd to me. On one hand, they indicate strongly valued privacy with the "no posts about the child" rule; seemingly recognizing the hidden costs of permissive 'oversharing'. But, on the other hand, they place a very high importance on reserving (vanity) domain and user names, securing the right for her to sharecrop out her personal information in as-accurate-a-means as possible; reinforcing the va…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep saying facebook will disappear... but maybe it won't? Maybe it will become like email, less used but ever-present.
Unfortunately, I believe Facebook toed over that critical mass that has moved it into a long-term dominator of social networking. It has long since passed the point where it's going to just go away and be replaced by something else, like Myspace and other past social sites were. They may not be around forever, but it seems unlikely they'll be unseated any time soon. We are no longer in an age where a bunch of geeks m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll grant that it's logically possible. But I don't really understand why people think it's disadvantageous if others can find out whether or not you were cute when you were two years old. I think it has more to do with fear of what's new than any logical argument. Putting my money where my mouth is, here is my son: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7402/9525304181_8da5d48e22_b.j... In what future dystopia will the pres…
Simple example: Your pretty child is also quite a bit overweight. Or fell and got a big bruise that you for some reason just treated yourself and failed to bring up in some health insurance form. Less trivial stuff (like having acne) has been used to deny people coverage when they've been diagnosed with cancer. This is just of the top off my head, which is the point: We simply don't _know_ what might happen in the fu…
And in fact, if a kid doesn't have some meat on their bones, that's a reason for concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a general rule, it's pretty safe to do "what everybody else is doing." I noticed this rule after the housing crash. If one person was underwater on their mortgage, no one would blink. But, when hundreds of thousands of people become underwater, Congress started to get involved to (attempt to) provide relief. It seems impossible to limit someone's exposure on Facebook, especially when any 3rd party will happily pos…
>But, when hundreds of thousands of people become underwater, Congress started to get involved to (attempt to) provide relief. Yeah, I was almost afraid that I had bought too small of a house, knowing that I would have to pay for my share of the mortgage bailout in extra taxes and value lost to inflation, I might as well buy the most ridiculous crib I could get financing for. Right? But then it came to pass that thos…
So just stop using FB. Problem solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but I suppose the point is to make it the child's decision to share or not when they become mature enough to make that choice. (Personally my wife and I have no information on our kids online, save a self-hosted blog with a password that only family know...).
Sure, the spoken lesson is: be careful what you share, there are risks. But the article isn't about privacy conscientiousness, it's about brand conscientiousness. The author isn't talking about how she might construct rules to effect a safe space for her daughter to grow and learn and internalize these values, separate from known pitfalls that might cause her harm. The author talks only about how she constructed a sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's great to see someone treat their child's privacy with some value, instead of using them as a way to endear themselves to virtual friends I don't know about you, but I use social networks to share photos with my real friends. Why would I want virtual friends?
Congratulations, but your exception does not disprove my observed generalization. People are, unfortunately, not usually as discreet as you state you are.
The article struck me as paranoid, but I agree with your assessment that the authors' reserving their kids' digital real estate is not contradictory with the authors' concern -- it leaves the choice up to the child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple example: Your pretty child is also quite a bit overweight. Or fell and got a big bruise that you for some reason just treated yourself and failed to bring up in some health insurance form. Less trivial stuff (like having acne) has been used to deny people coverage when they've been diagnosed with cancer. This is just of the top off my head, which is the point: We simply don't _know_ what might happen in the fu…
(1) that kid is not overweight and (2) it's actually OK from a medical perspective for a child to be a little overweight, as children grow in bursts, have a much better metabolism and their day is filled with plenty of exercise. And in fact, if a kid doesn't have some meat on their bones, that's a reason for concern.
[Edit: To make it clear, I haven't even looked at the picture previously posted, I was providing an unrelated example.]