A recent survey discussed in Brian Krebs blog on the Washington Post site shows that many Americans are unaware of the level of security on their computers. I would be curious to hear thoughts on the privacy implications that might result from this level of unawareness.
Cyber Security Month info abounds in cyberspace. Here are a few links:
Today’s New York Times has an editorial concerning Congressional reaction to the issue of “libel tourism.” “Libel tourism” refers to the suing of American authors because the Internet makes copies of their books available in countries with weaker protections on free speech. The term was discussed previously on this page.
The following is the text of a letter from the National Taxpayers Union to the the United States Senate. The letter contains a claim of the potential for equal protections being weaked without Senate action. How does the letter link Internet taxes to equal protections?
March 17, 2004
An Open Letter to the U.S. Senate: S. 150, not S. 2084, Provides Real Protection for Internet Users. Pass a Permanent Internet Tax Ban Today!
Dear Senator:
On behalf of the 350,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to work for immediate passage of S. 150, The Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act. As you know, this important legislation would continue the prohibition on taxes levied by state and local governments on Internet access, and on taxes that treat sales made over the Internet differently from other sales. Unfortunately, in spite of bipartisan support and passage by the House, the previous ban on Internet taxes expired on November 1, 2003.
A substitute bill, S. 2084, the Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act being offered by Senators Carper and Alexander, is inadequate, not only because it is temporary, but also because it would carve out a new exemption to the tax ban for states to tax DSL (or digital subscriber line) service. The DSL exemption could create a new “telephone-like” tax and cost some consumers up to $150 a year. The Carper-Alexander bill could eventually make Internet access more expensive for consumers and small-business owners.
Congress has passed temporary bans on Internet taxes similar to S. 150 in recent years, but some in the Senate, particularly those representing states that would lose their “grandfathered” status which allows them to collect Internet access taxes, have pushed hard to weaken and limit the scope of the moratorium. Rather than passing S. 2084 and allowing state and local officials to tax everything from email to Internet access in two years, the Senate should pass S. 150 to ensure that taxpayers who go online will never be hit with unfair or “double” taxation.
The time for debate and delay of this important tax ban has passed. The only way to truly safeguard equal protection under the law for Internet users is by voting for S. 150. NTU and its members will be watching Senators’ votes on this important issue. Any roll-call votes in favor of S. 150 and against S. 2084 will be weighted heavily in our annual rating of Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Gessing
Director of Government Affairs
I came across this picture while looking for information to post, and it made me pause. What does this graphic have to say about civil liberties and the digital context? From what point of view does it approach emerging information technology?
Local news outlets have been reporting that the Monroe County website has made Social Security numbers accessible online. Below are links to several local news stories about this situation. What are the risks and rewards of online record keeping? What impact does party politics play in the privacy issue?
A very interesting piece is found online at the New York Times website about the Internet and its effects on free speech. While the Internet has been a boon to free speech worldwide, it can also cause some headaches. The quote below gives a pretty good summary of the point of the article, but I encourage folks to read it in its entirety.
“In the Internet age, almost every American book can be bought in Britain. That means American authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest.”
If anyone has any thoughts about this issue, you are encouraged to get the conversation going via the comment or forum features.
The following is a TED talkon the immediate future of the Internet from Wired executive editor Kevin Kelly. It should give everyone some perspective of where digital technology might be headed.
Today’s New York Times editorial page criticizes the increasing Congressional focus on the Internet as a place that “promotes radicalization and terrorism.” It is interesting that the cover story of the Magazine Section is written by Emily Gould, a moderately famous blogger, and focuses on the idea of “oversharing”, a buzzword for a lack of self-censorship. Both are worth a read, but it is unfortunate that the latter will receive the lion’s share of attention and comment.
Does the lack of self-censorship by individuals provide the opportunity for governmental censorship? Should we be careful of the environment we create when we are not careful about speech? Or can self-censorship be simply the result of governmental threats, and therefore the initial infringement on free speech?
The GVCLU is currently accepting submissions for the 3rd Annual First Amendment Public Service Announcement Contest. It is open to any 7-12 grade student in our nine county region.
For more information please contact Nora Dimmock at (585) 271-8224 or ndimmock@library.rochester.edu.
