California passes location privacy bill

For those who are not already familiar with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you need to check them out. They're the best digital rights advocacy group out there and they sponsored this new privacy bill in California. We need to see more states adopt legislation like this that actually benefits consumers.

Location privacy scored a victory today when the California Assembly overwhelmingly passed an EFF-sponsored location privacy bill, SB 1434, on a bipartisan vote of 63-11.

The bill would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant anytime it requests location information from an electronic device. It codifies the Supreme Court's decision from earlier this year in United States v. Jones, which ruled that the installation of a GPS device for purposes of law enforcement investigation requires a search warrant. Having passed both chambers of the California legislature by a combined vote of 93-17, and assuming the Senate concurs with the version of the bill passed by the Assembly, the bill will soon land on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown.

The last EFF supported California privacy bill -- SB 914, which would have required police to obtain a search warrant before searching the contents of an arrested person's cell phone -- was vetoed by Governor Brown in 2011. In his opinion vetoing the bill (PDF), he wrote "courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections." But when it comes to location data, legislatures play an important part in protecting privacy for all of us.

Read the rest of this post...

How one guy got seriously hacked, and Apple blew it

Horrific story on WIRED.

In the space of one hour, my entire digital life was destroyed. First my Google account was taken over, then deleted. Next my Twitter account was compromised, and used as a platform to broadcast racist and homophobic messages. And worst of all, my AppleID account was broken into, and my hackers used it to remotely erase all of the data on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook.

In many ways, this was all my fault. My accounts were daisy-chained together. Getting into Amazon let my hackers get into my Apple ID account, which helped them get into Gmail, which gave them access to Twitter. Had I used two-factor authentication for my Google account, it’s possible that none of this would have happened, because their ultimate goal was always to take over my Twitter account and wreak havoc. Lulz.

Had I been regularly backing up the data on my MacBook, I wouldn’t have had to worry about losing more than a year’s worth of photos, covering the entire lifespan of my daughter, or documents and e-mails that I had stored in no other location.

I didn't even know that you could link those various accounts. Jesus, read this part about how they hacked Amazon:

Getting a credit card number is tricker, but it also relies on taking advantage of a company’s back-end systems. Phobia says that a partner performed this part of the hack, but described the technique to us, which we were able to verify via our own tech support phone calls. It’s remarkably easy — so easy that Wired was able to duplicate the exploit twice in minutes.

First you call Amazon and tell them you are the account holder, and want to add a credit card number to the account. All you need is the name on the account, an associated e-mail address, and the billing address. Amazon then allows you to input a new credit card. (Wired used a bogus credit card number from a website that generates fake card numbers that conform with the industry’s published self-check algorithm.) Then you hang up.

Next you call back, and tell Amazon that you’ve lost access to your account. Upon providing a name, billing address, and the new credit card number you gave the company on the prior call, Amazon will allow you to add a new e-mail address to the account. From here, you go to the Amazon website, and send a password reset to the new e-mail account. This allows you to see all the credit cards on file for the account — not the complete numbers, just the last four digits. But, as we know, Apple only needs those last four digits. We asked Amazon to comment on its security policy, but didn’t have anything to share by press time.

One thing I don't like about the article is that the writer assumes you know what he's talking about when he writes of "daisy chaining" two accounts together. I'm not entirely sure whether he means using the same "id" for both accounts, or literally is there some way to link the two accounts? Or what "two-factor authentication for Gmail" is. Okay I looked up two factor verification, I know what it is - it's a pain in the ass. Keeps phoning you when you want to log in to gmail or Blogger. Seriously annoying "fix." Read the rest of this post...

Can a private business stop you from taking photos on a downtown street?

A fascinating story about a DC suburb leased an entire city street to a private developer who now is trying to control the sidewalks as if they're private property.

From Marc Fisher at the Washington Post:

Chip Py, a longtime resident of Silver Spring, recently returned to an old interest in photography. While wandering through downtown after eating lunch there last week, he took out his camera and started to take shots of the contrast between the tops of the office buildings and the sparkling blue sky.

Within seconds, a private security guard was at Py's side, informing him that picture-taking is not permitted, no explanation given.

"I am on a city street, in a public place," Py replied. "Taking pictures is a right that I have, protected by the First Amendment."

The guard sent Py to the management office of the Peterson Cos., the developer that built the new downtown. There, marketing official Stacy Horan told Py that although Ellsworth Drive -- where many of the downtown's shops and eateries are located -- may look like a public street, it is actually treated as private property, controlled by Peterson.

The contractor added:

Peterson's motives go beyond security. "Like any business, Downtown Silver Spring's management maintains the right to approve any videotaping, filming or photography taking place on the property," Smith's statement reads. "It is in our best interest to understand how footage and photos are going to be used."

Read the rest of this post...

Is British Airways googling passengers really that creepy?

I'm not seeing it.

British Airways’ announcement that it plans to start doing Google image searches of some customers so its staff can greet them by name isn’t sitting well with privacy advocates. “Since when has buying a flight ticket meant giving your airline permission to start hunting for information about you on the Internet?”, the delightfully named Nick Pickles of UK-based privacy group Big Brother Watch griped to the London Evening Standard.

I’d say it has always meant that, Mr. Pickles, since I’ve never heard of any law requiring anyone to get permission before Googling someone. Even so, the privacy backlash does suggest that we draw a line between computers tracking us and actual people tracking us. Most of us seem to be OK with websites installing cookies on our computers so they can recall our preferences (language, region, password, and so forth). And while a few of us may still have qualms about Google’s computers scanning our emails to serve us personalized ads, most seem to have accepted even this level of automated intrusion. But when a stewardess looks up publicly available information, we get queasy in a hurry.

As far as I can tell, British Airways is being open and honest about what it’s doing. The purpose of its “Know Me” program, according to a press release, is “to collate a wealth of data from every experience the customer has with the airline and translate that into meaningful service for that individual.”

Hard to find that too objectionable compared to everything else companies do these days with data we not only don't control, but don't even have a full grasp of what it even is.

Having said that, this may be the difference between privacy in Europe and (the lack of) privacy in America.  The fact that this kind of things sets off warning bells to privacy advocates in Europe may not simply mean that they're a bit anal.  It might just mean that Europe, or at the least the UK, has a much healthier concern (or expectation) about an individual's privacy than those of us across the Atlantic. Read the rest of this post...

Verizon says it can edit your access to Web sites like the newspaper edits content

So, basically, Verizon is saying that it can pick and choose which Web sites Verizon broadband customers can access and which it can't, just like a newspaper picks and chooses which articles, or letters to the editor, it publishes.

Which is an interesting argument since, as Jeff Jarvis notes, that means Verizon is saying that it owns the content of every Web site a Verizon customer accesses just as a newspaper owns the copyright on everything it publishes in the paper.

Huh?

What's next?  Does Verizon Wireless have the right to edit my phone conversations in the same way a newspaper edits itself?  Or does that only apply to VOIP phone calls done over a Verizon Internet connection?  And does Verizon own the content of my phone calls?

Americans pay an oscene price for their broadband connections as compared to Europe.  As Chris has noted before, in France you can get a much faster connection than we have here in the US, and get cable TV and phone service (with free calls at home and to dozens of countries), for about 30 euros a month (or $36).  And on top of it, we have to deal with telecom companies that think they own us.

It is interesting that Verizon is so interested in controlling my Internet access when it can't even control my cell phone. Verizon says it has no way to block the telemarketer who calls my iPhone several times a day from an unknown number and then hangs up as soon as I answer.  Interesting that there's "no way" to block the person, but I can simply jailbreak my phone and then get an app that can - what? - block "unknown" callers. Read the rest of this post...

Cellphone companies got 1.3m requests for subscriber info from law enforcement in 2011

It sounds like a lot - it is a lot - but the second paragraph I quote, below, raises the point that in every crime you'll probably find a perp or a victim who had a cell phone on them. That could make quite useful evidence. It would be nice to see a larger breakdown of just what kind of requests these are, what they're for, etc.  NYT:

In the first public accounting of its kind, cellphone carriers reported that they responded to a startling 1.3 million demands for subscriber information last year from law enforcement agencies seeking text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations.

“At every crime scene, there’s some type of mobile device,” said Peter Modafferi, chief of detectives for the Rockland County district attorney’s office in New York, who also works on investigative policies and operations with the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The need for the police to exploit that technology “has grown tremendously, and it’s absolutely vital,” he said in an interview.

Read the rest of this post...

Is the US government reading your email without a warrant?

The ACLU is trying to find out and the deadline for providing a response is quickly approaching. During the Bush years, many suspected that it was a Republican obsession with hating privacy but sadly it's a political class and government problem and likely a lot more widespread than any of us would like.

ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump, who ran the cellphone location data investigation, is at it again. This time, she has filed similar Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies, asking about their policies and legal processes for reading Internet users' emails.

"It's high time we know what's going on," Crump told msnbc.com. "It's been clear since the 1870s that the government needs a warrant to read postal mail. There's no good reason email should be treated differently."

There are hints that it is being treated differently, however. In a landmark 2010 case, United States v. Warshak, government investigators acknowledged that they read 27,000 emails without obtaining a search warrant, violating both the suspect's privacy and the privacy of everyone who communicated with the suspect, according to Crump.

Read the rest of this post...

Canada eavesdropping on conversations at airport

Airports and border crossings across Canada are being wired with high-definition cameras and microphones that can eavesdrop on travellers' conversations, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Finding the bad guys before they even get to the airport has to be a more efficient plan for success because monitoring all of this data can't be a simple process. On top of that, there are the privacy issues, which nobody in government cares about these days. What are they doing with this information and how long are they storing the data? More importantly, who is overseeing the agency that holds this data?

Since the Canadian program is being expanded, is it expanding because it's delivered results or is it being expanded to listen in on airport workers? It's strange that the program was only recently uncovered by airport workers. Most workers already have their emails monitored but adding conversations is a big step. Who hasn't said something at the office about their employer? Now those comments can potentially be used against an employee.

Yet another concern is whether the TSA is doing the same at US airports. If they are, do they need to announce this to anyone? Is this going too far or is it fair game?

Already, though, the union representing about 45 CBSA employees at the airport is concerned personal workplace conversations and remarks could be captured and become part of employees' official record, Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Custom and Immigration Union, said Friday. He added that the union only learned of the audio-recording development this week, after reporters began making inquiries.

The recording equipment may also be linked to a federal initiative to help CBSA combat organized crime and internal smuggling conspiracies at big Canadian airports.

A 2008 RCMP report said at least 58 crime groups were believed active at major airports, typically by corrupting airport employees or placing criminal associates in airport jobs to move narcotics and other contraband to and from planes.

Read the rest of this post...

UK accuses Google of deliberately capturing private data

It's not exactly the "don't be evil" that Google used to talk about. If true, whoever approved this stupid move (and it was reportedly at high levels) overlooked the legal impact of grabbing this data and holding onto it. The legal action around the world is going to be very expensive for Google and it was completely avoidable. The Guardian:

Google is facing increasing pressure after the information commissioner launched an investigation into claims that it orchestrated a cover-up of its capture of emails, passwords and medical records of people in the UK.

The UK data watchdog has written to Google demanding answers after it emerged that the search engine firm knew its Street View cars could harvest personal information as they photographed homes across the globe.

The information commissioner's office said it was likely that highly private data – including email messages and browsing history – was secretly and deliberately captured from internet users in the UK. Google will now have to explain whether it misled regulators over the saga, which has hounded the company for more than two years.

Read the rest of this post...

eHarmony and LinkedIn passwords stolen

Okay, does anyone use any of the password programs that are out there to help you store, and keep track of, various passwords for various Web sites?  While advice like this is good, it's all terribly impractical:

The eHarmony blog post recommended that people create strong passwords of at least eight characters, mixing upper- and lower-case letters, numbers and symbols, use different passwords for each Internet site and change passwords every few months.

I've read about the various programs to help you keep track of passwords, but haven't found them terribly comprehensible. How do they work, and what are some good ones? Anyone? Post in the comments. (I'll start researching this more today.) Read the rest of this post...

TSA once again accused of molesting senior citizen

As predicted, the TSA has managed to embarrass yet another senior citizen. The TSA really doesn't appreciate how poorly run the organization is and how costly their attacks on privacy can be for Americans. Their record shows that the system remains easy to beat and they have yet to identify a single terrorist. Read the rest of this post...

Mother accuses school of forcing 13 year old girl to give Facebook password

Besides being an obvious violation of privacy, it just sounds creepy not to mention wrong. School officials are claiming no such thing happened, that it would open the school up to legal problems. Hopefully there's a big mistake with this story because there is no way this should be tolerated. MSNBC.com:

Pam Broviak, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Geneva, Ill., says her daughter was traumatized when the principal of Geneva Middle School South forced the child to log in to her Facebook account, then rummaged through the girl's private information.

"What a violation of my daughter's privacy this whole episode was," Broviak said. The incident took "a huge toll on my daughter, who ended up crying through most of the rest of the day and therefore missed most of her classes. She was embarrassed and very upset."

There have been several descriptions lately of Facebook prying by schools – and one lawsuit was filed recently by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff against a school district that allegedly demanded a student’s social media passwords. But Broviak may be the first parent to go public with concerns about what she sees as serious violations of student privacy.

Read the rest of this post...

Facebook sued for tracking users, even after they logged out

Hundreds of millions of people use Facebook and like (and love) it, but the regular stream of privacy problems encouraged me to delete my account years ago. As the financial pressure on Facebook to hit quarterly and annual numbers increases, this is likely to get worse than it already is today.

Privacy matters:

Facebook is being sued for $15 billion for tracking users, even after they have logged out of the social network, and violating federal wiretap laws. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is: Facebook faces nationwide class action tracking cookie lawsuit.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Federal Court in San Jose, California, combines 21 separate cases across the U.S. in 2011 and early 2012. It’s an amended consolidated class-action complaint that claims the company is invading the privacy of its users by tracking them across the Internet. If the claimants are successful in their case against Facebook, they could prevent Menlo Park from collecting the huge amount of data it collects about its users to serve ads back to them.

Read the rest of this post...

Rupert Murdoch's former MySpace settles privacy violation with FTC

Wow. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp really can't keep its nose clean these days. The violations occurred when MySpace was owned by News Corp as well as with the post-News Corp time period. MySpace will be "watched" by the federal government for twenty years because of this problem.

Myspace social network has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it disclosed personally identifiable information about its users to advertisers, in violation of its privacy policy.

The proposed settlement with the FTC would bar Myspace from future misrepresentations and require the social network to implement a comprehensive privacy program that calls for independent assessments to be conducted over the next 20 years.

Myspace encouraged its 24.7-million users to create online profiles containing substantial personal information — such as a person's age, gender, photograph and name (if they failed to provide one, their real name would be associated with this information).

Anyone else notice the theme of disregard for privacy by News Corp businesses?

(To follow on Twitter: @ChrisInParis) Read the rest of this post...

Twitter supports Occupy Wall Street, refuses court order violating user's privacy

A round of applause for Twitter today. Users own their own content, according to the company.

Twitter has moved to quash a court order issued by the Manhattan district attorney that would require it to hand over the tweets of a writer and Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge last October.

In a motion filed in the criminal court in New York on Monday Twitter argued that it should not be forced to give the prosecutor three months worth of tweets by Malcolm Harris, who was arrested on the bridge along with 700 other activists.

Harris had issued his own motion in a bid to quash the subpoena in February, contending that there was "no justification" for New York prosecutors to seek "such a broad swath of electronic data". The motion was rejected by Judge Matthew A Sciarrino Jr on 20 April, in an order ruling that Harris did not have the legal standing to challenge the subpoena because Twitter owned the rights to his tweets.

NOTE FROM JOHN: It's really scary that judges, who probably understand the Internet as well as my parents, are making law governing the Internet.

First, someone doesn't have automatic rights in their own written content that's posted online? Really? So I guess I don't have rights to my own blog then.

Second, the NY prosecutors wants Twitter to turn over user information, including the user's email address. That's a pretty hefty privacy violation without a court order, or just cause.

Harris was arrested in October and charged with disorderly conduct for his participation in an Occupy Wall Street march that ended with some 700 arrests after protesters walked onto the road section of the Brooklyn Bridge. New York prosecutors issued a subpoena to Twitter on 26 January, requesting three months worth of tweets from Harris's twitter account as well as "user information, including email address".

Do you know anyone who has any kind of account, online or off, that doesn't publicly state their real name? Do you think the true identity of the account holder should be publicly available without a court order? And, again, how the judge claim that the account holder has no interest in their identity being released?

Next, check out the fishing expedition the NY prosecutor is on:

The New York Times has reported that prosecutors want to see three months of Harris's tweetsin the belief they may contradict his potential defence that police allowed protesters to walk in the road.

"The defendant may have used the account to make statements while on the bridge that were inconsistent with his anticipated trial defense," the Times quoted assistant district attorney Lee Langston as saying.

May?  Is there any evidence he did?  And why stop there. The defendant "may" have used his account to conspire with the newest underwear bomber. He "may" have used his account to plan the assassination of the President. Heck, any of us "may" have. So let's open up every electronic communication to the NYPD so they can make sure that none of us "may" be up to no good.

(To follow me on Twitter: @ChrisInParis) Read the rest of this post...

Federal judge rules that a Facebook "Like" not protected under 1st Amendment

Too extreme or fair game?  From Yahoo News:

Six people sued Sheriff B. J. Roberts in Hampton, Virginia after he fired them. They say they were fired for supporting his opponent in his bid to be reelected, which would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. One of the six fired, Daniel Ray Carter, "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent. Roberts claims they were either fired for poor performance, or because supporting his opponent "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office."

Judge Raymond A. Jackson acknowledged that other cases involving written messages on Facebook protected the speaker with the First Amendment, clicking the "like" button is different and doesn't warrant protection.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I'm sensing a bit off luddite from the judge.

How is the "like" button "NOT speech? Later on in the article the "like" button is compared to a retweet on Twitter. Wrong. A retweet on Twitter doesn't mean you agree with the tweet or the tweeter, or even like either. When you click the "like" button on a Facebook page, it usually indicates that you like the things behind the page. But not always. Sometimes people click "like" in order to be able to follow what the page is doing, writing, saying. But, if someone interprets your "like" as meaning you support the candidate, and if they fire you for it, then yes they were punishing you for political speech. There's no way around it. Read the rest of this post...

Microsoft backs off of CISPA "support"

The NSA and creepy right-wing Republicans seem determined to jam through something that will crush privacy in America and destroy our traditional values, but it may be getting a bit harder to do.

Love them or hate them, Microsoft carries enough weight to win or lose, and the company is now shifting from its mild support to raising questions about CISPA. Microsoft and the rest of the tech community needs to be encouraged by consumers to fully drop support for these attacks on privacy.

More from CNET:

In response to queries from CNET, Microsoft, which has long been viewed as a supporter of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, said this evening that any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers." Microsoft added that it wants to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy." That's a noticeable change -- albeit not a complete reversal -- from Microsoft's position when CISPA was introduced in November 2011.

Read the rest of this post...

Case for legal action against Murdoch in USA building, over 1,000 phones likely hacked in UK

Although this latest report from The Guardian doesn't specifically say Fox News was involved in hacking, it does throw Fox News into the scandal by suggesting there are reports of something that involving a breach of privacy. It's unfortunate that too many Democrats play the Fox News game of pretending as though they are fair and balanced, though perhaps it is out of fear. Whatever it is, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media empire may have some problems in the US in the very near future.

Lewis said that he had been contacted by a number of people since he arrived in the US last weekend "raising issues against other [News Corp] titles or Fox News, not necessarily about hacking but about other untoward dark arts to obtain information that should be private." He added that the new complaints were unproven allegations.

Lewis told reporters that he had taken on a fourth case of alleged phone hacking in the US. Previously, it had been known that he was representing three individuals, one of whom is an American citizen and two of whom are Europeans who believe their phones were hacked while visiting America.

In addition, Siegel, a former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said he had been contacted by six individuals raising complaints about News Corp outlets. "My experience in these sorts of cases is that when people sense you are serious and balanced in your approach, they begin to come out of the woodwork," he said.

And Bloomberg reports that in the UK over 1,000 cell phones were likely hacked by News of the World. Read the rest of this post...

Employers banned from asking for Facebook passwords in Maryland

We had reported earlier that employers have been asking prospective employees, in job interviews, to provide their Facebook username and password, so the job interviewer can purview your entire Facebook account, including any private sections (with photos, etc) that it might contain.

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

We learn today that at least one state cares about privacy. It's creepy and an invasion of privacy for an employer or potential employer to ask for password details and it may also be illegal.  And if it's not, it should be.

Maryland on Monday became the first state in the nation to ban employers from requesting access to the social media accounts of employees and job applicants.

The state’s General Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit employers from requiring or seeking user names, passwords or any other means of accessing personal Internet sites such as Facebook as a condition of employment.

NOTE FROM JOHN: The Obama administration, and congress, really ought to intervene here. Putting an end to this is not only a pro-"jobs" message, it also is a no-brainer in terms of something the public would easily support, and thus gain kudos for whichever politicians jump on this first. Read the rest of this post...

Why I'm worried about Project Glass

I know that John and others are incredibly excited about Google's Project Glass (Google's new project to put the Internet into a pair of eyeglasses). And, to a certain extent, I share in that excitement. But, aside from the fact that if and when Google Glasses become popular people are going to be driving cars with screens in front of their faces, I see further potential drawbacks to the increasingly digital existence that the product could bring (I'll go ahead and point out the irony of illustrating my concerns via a blog post up front).

As I wrote for the Kenyon Observer earlier, Project Glass reminds me of a book I read in middle school. And not in a good way. The book is M.T. Anderson's Feed, published in 2004, which illustrates a future in which everyone has chips planted in their heads at birth. The chips, or "feeds" do everything the Internet currently does and more: it's a search engine, instant messenger and online shopping mall. But, as I point out in my Observer post, your feed has a more important function:

...it constantly accumulates, aggregates and sells your personal information to corporations, which build up databases of buyer histories that help them tailor advertisements on an individual level. In one scene the main character, Titus, is picking out a hovercar and immediately receives competing advertisements for the two models he's considering: the ad for the smaller, sportier one shows him and his girlfriend on a romantic getaway; the ad for the larger one shows him taking all of his friends to a party. Both companies have access to Titus' mind to the point where they can literally construct dreams in his head about how the world could, and should, be for him.

Throughout the book, Titus and his cadre of shallow friends are gleeful participants in an empty, entertainment-driven culture featuring the hit sitcom "Oh? Wow! Thing!" and the constant message of "buy, buy, buy" in the background, personalized to fit their immediate desires. Not to spoil the ending, but when Titus' girlfriend's feed malfunctions, damaging her brain, the corporations in charge are unwilling to help her because she isn't a prolific shopper; helping her isn't worth it.

So why does this book have anything to do with Project Glass? Because securing the Internet to the front of your face is as close as you can come to putting it inside your head. The idea makes Google's famous "Don't be evil" mantra seem increasingly Orwellian:

I read [Feed] before things like Amazon.com's "customers who bought this also bought..." feature became really big, so the concept of personalized ads seemed plausible but nevertheless somewhat alien. Only a few years later my email, Facebook and Youtube accounts are all bombarding me with a combination of advertisements geared to suit me and me alone (in case I need a reminder that I'm young and single, I have my own lineup of Jewish dating, ab workout and college-themed clothing sites only one click away). This form of advertising, made possible by a massive network of data-mining and information-selling, is now so ubiquitous that companies don't even feel the need to hide the fact that they're doing it.

Don't get me wrong, there are uses for personalized advertising. As unlikely as I am to buy anything off of the Internet, I'm far more likely to buy something that is based on my search history than a product shown at random. But are the benefits of assimilating technology with my brain worth the costs?

[When] I saw the video promoting Project Glass, Feed was naturally the first thing that came to mind. How else could I interpret a systematic attempt to eliminate the ever-shrinking (and beneficial) gap between person and computer? While unlimited and instantaneous information has its uses, there is still a reason we go outside: to look at something other than a screen. The product is, without a doubt, incredibly cool. However, I worry that we have become complacent, and even excited, about a world that looks increasingly like this.

Read the rest of this post...