Comments on: More Alarmism Over Social Networking Sites http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:40:16 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sean http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-71565 Sean Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:44:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-71565 Social Networking is an amazing by-road of the internet. Here to stay - FULL STOP. Social Networking is an amazing by-road of the internet. Here to stay – FULL STOP.

]]> By: Info/Law » IP Foolishness Infecting Political Coverage http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-61220 Info/Law » IP Foolishness Infecting Political Coverage Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:40:07 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-61220 [...] proud tradition here at Info/Law of mercilessly spotlighting journalistic cluenessness in matters of intellectual property (all with the best of intentions! right, guys? …guys?), here’s today’s [...] [...] proud tradition here at Info/Law of mercilessly spotlighting journalistic cluenessness in matters of intellectual property (all with the best of intentions! right, guys? …guys?), here’s today’s [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Banning MySpace for Jocks http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-6812 Info/Law » Banning MySpace for Jocks Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:45:03 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-6812 [...] Authorities on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota (UMD) have banned student athletes at the school from having accounts on social networking sites like MySpace and Friendster. The story in the local Duluth newspaper is surprisingly good, giving both sides of the debate and avoiding the sort of “Interthreat” sensationalism often found in such reporting (even in the New York Times). [...] [...] Authorities on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota (UMD) have banned student athletes at the school from having accounts on social networking sites like MySpace and Friendster. The story in the local Duluth newspaper is surprisingly good, giving both sides of the debate and avoiding the sort of “Interthreat” sensationalism often found in such reporting (even in the New York Times). [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Intuit Disses Law Prof for Saying “Tony Danza” http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-6632 Info/Law » Intuit Disses Law Prof for Saying “Tony Danza” Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:25:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-6632 [...] Trademark? It’s a common misunderstanding of trademark law to suppose that owning a mark gives you the right to censor other people and forbid them from using the mark at all. But it has never been a violation of trademark to use a mark to refer to the mark holder’s own product. You can refer to The New York Times as “the New York Times” without violating its trademark — if it were otherwise, comparative advertising would be impossible, and trademark law would run into serious First Amendment problems. So if you’re using the words “Tony Danza” to refer to Tony Danza rather than to someone else, there’s no basis for a claim of trademark infringement. [...] [...] Trademark? It’s a common misunderstanding of trademark law to suppose that owning a mark gives you the right to censor other people and forbid them from using the mark at all. But it has never been a violation of trademark to use a mark to refer to the mark holder’s own product. You can refer to The New York Times as “the New York Times” without violating its trademark — if it were otherwise, comparative advertising would be impossible, and trademark law would run into serious First Amendment problems. So if you’re using the words “Tony Danza” to refer to Tony Danza rather than to someone else, there’s no basis for a claim of trademark infringement. [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Forcing those Web Skeletons Back Into the Closet? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-5040 Info/Law » Forcing those Web Skeletons Back Into the Closet? Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:16:38 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-5040 [...] So much has this sort of online self-disclosure become second nature to some members of this cohort that they can be quite surprised when the more restrictive norms of earlier generations intrude. They may retaliate (as in this funny story from last weekend’s NYT) by bringing a taste of Generation-Y norms to us older folks. More commonly, they may simply get tripped up, as the job applicants and camp counselors in some of my earlier postings did, by the unfamiliar expectations of the generations that didn’t grow up online. At my wife’s company, for example, new employees have proudly shared their Facebook profiles with managers, even where said profiles prominently feature close-up photographs of said employees passed out after a little too much partying — after all, the employees are no doubt thinking, isn’t that sort of sharing, democratizing, and hierarchy-leveling what the internet is all about? (Well, that and the other thing.) ;-) [...] [...] So much has this sort of online self-disclosure become second nature to some members of this cohort that they can be quite surprised when the more restrictive norms of earlier generations intrude. They may retaliate (as in this funny story from last weekend’s NYT) by bringing a taste of Generation-Y norms to us older folks. More commonly, they may simply get tripped up, as the job applicants and camp counselors in some of my earlier postings did, by the unfamiliar expectations of the generations that didn’t grow up online. At my wife’s company, for example, new employees have proudly shared their Facebook profiles with managers, even where said profiles prominently feature close-up photographs of said employees passed out after a little too much partying — after all, the employees are no doubt thinking, isn’t that sort of sharing, democratizing, and hierarchy-leveling what the internet is all about? (Well, that and the other thing.) ;-) [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Digital Is Forever http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-897 Info/Law » Digital Is Forever Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:31:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-897 [...] But the permanence of networked information has costs, too, which (like the benefits) are only beginning to be explored. Members of the generation just behind mine, who have grown up reflexively creating and posting information online, are learning that digital is forever — if you’re a job applicant (or even a camp counselor), anything that has ever been written by (or about) you online is, at least potentially, still there. (Back in my day, we used goofy aliases to hide our online identities; but I gather that practice has been fading.) Once information is online, it turns out, it may becomes quite hard ever to get it back offline again — the Wayback Machine preserves old web pages; Google Groups archives Usenet posts; and it’s only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the magic bullet that automatically archives IRC and IM conversations and makes them searchable. Even your deleted e-mails aren’t necessarily gone; they may still exist on backup tapes where law enforcement authorities can get them. The durability of digital content raises problems that touch on both informational security and individual privacy. [...] [...] But the permanence of networked information has costs, too, which (like the benefits) are only beginning to be explored. Members of the generation just behind mine, who have grown up reflexively creating and posting information online, are learning that digital is forever — if you’re a job applicant (or even a camp counselor), anything that has ever been written by (or about) you online is, at least potentially, still there. (Back in my day, we used goofy aliases to hide our online identities; but I gather that practice has been fading.) Once information is online, it turns out, it may becomes quite hard ever to get it back offline again — the Wayback Machine preserves old web pages; Google Groups archives Usenet posts; and it’s only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the magic bullet that automatically archives IRC and IM conversations and makes them searchable. Even your deleted e-mails aren’t necessarily gone; they may still exist on backup tapes where law enforcement authorities can get them. The durability of digital content raises problems that touch on both informational security and individual privacy. [...]

]]> By: Amir Sariaslan » Företagens moraliska jakt på den personliga integriteten http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-482 Amir Sariaslan » Företagens moraliska jakt på den personliga integriteten Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:58:50 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-482 [...] Bloggen Info/Law skriver: [...] [...] Bloggen Info/Law skriver: [...]

]]> By: William McGeveran http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-378 William McGeveran Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:49:50 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-378 Tim, I also found that article infuriating. I too was particularly bothered by the throwaway line (in the Times' voice, not a quote from someone) about how registering for a trademark supposedly entitles you to censor anyone from mentioning your brand name. This is a dramatic (but sadly common) misunderstanding of trademark law. One other point: as badly as the camps are handling new technology, some of the campers and counselors don't sound too great either. One counselor told the Times, "Because [her blog] did not mention her surname, 'I didn't think anybody could connect it to me.'" Wow. If removing her surname is the only anonymizing step she took (for example, I guess it mentions her employer by name if it's in the article), that's a drastic misunderstanding of how to protect your privacy effectively. At least the director of one camp, in addition to ridiculous responses like the trademarking and "beefing up internal security" (huh?), seems also to have stumbled on a sensible idea almost by accident: "We're bringing in a child psychologist to spend two days with campers talking about good decision-making." Tim, I also found that article infuriating. I too was particularly bothered by the throwaway line (in the Times’ voice, not a quote from someone) about how registering for a trademark supposedly entitles you to censor anyone from mentioning your brand name. This is a dramatic (but sadly common) misunderstanding of trademark law.

One other point: as badly as the camps are handling new technology, some of the campers and counselors don’t sound too great either. One counselor told the Times, “Because [her blog] did not mention her surname, ‘I didn’t think anybody could connect it to me.’” Wow. If removing her surname is the only anonymizing step she took (for example, I guess it mentions her employer by name if it’s in the article), that’s a drastic misunderstanding of how to protect your privacy effectively.

At least the director of one camp, in addition to ridiculous responses like the trademarking and “beefing up internal security” (huh?), seems also to have stumbled on a sensible idea almost by accident: “We’re bringing in a child psychologist to spend two days with campers talking about good decision-making.”

]]> By: Dean C. Rowan http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-358 Dean C. Rowan Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:34:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/22/more-alarmism-over-social-networking-#comment-358 A must read in this regard, albeit a dated one, is James Kincaid's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0822321939/qid=1150993658/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3353724-2929657?s=books&v=glance&n=283155" rel="nofollow">Erotic Innocence</a>: The Culture of Child Molesting (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. P., 1998) ISBN 0822321777. See the Amazon customer reviews to glean a sense of the book's provocative tone, but I for one think it's the funniest book I'll ever read about child molestation. My point in recommending this, however, is that it largely demonstrates the urge to scapegoat mentioned by Tim. A must read in this regard, albeit a dated one, is James Kincaid’s Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. P., 1998) ISBN 0822321777. See the Amazon customer reviews to glean a sense of the book’s provocative tone, but I for one think it’s the funniest book I’ll ever read about child molestation. My point in recommending this, however, is that it largely demonstrates the urge to scapegoat mentioned by Tim.

]]>