Beginning with a small group of users, Facebook has been testing six different versions of this tool to determine what works best. Based on feedback from the group, the testing tool will be refined to a final version before all the changes are made available to the entire network. However, since the recent post made no mention of a timeline for these changes, the implication is that these new updates are not going live just yet. Instead, the post was merely setting the stage for what’s to come. Why Facebook Cares About PrivacyIt’s good to see Facebook taking the issue of privacy seriously. Although it’s easy to blame the user for over-sharing and then having to deal with harsh consequences like job loss or even, remarkably, the loss of health-care benefits by sharing some items too publicly, at the end of the day, affected users will not blame themselves, they will blame Facebook. And those reading these “social network horror stories” in the media could ultimately become too afraid to post to the site, leading to a less active user base, or worse – users deleting their accounts. Privacy issues are bad news for Facebook, just as they were bad news for MySpace back when they were king. For years, there were so many news stories about sexual predators on MySpace that eventually the public perception of MySpace was that the network wasn’t very safe. Instead of going that route and allowing the media stories about Facebook blunders to control the network’s public image, these privacy changes are designed to preempt the missteps and mistakes the not-so-savvy user base may make by making Facebook privacy simpler and more refined while also more representative of the large network Facebook has become. ReadWriteWeb’s Best Of Lists for 2009:Top 10 Mobile Web Products of 2009Top 10 Consumer Web Apps of 2009Top 10 Semantic Web Products of 2009To be continued… Also check out ReadWriteWeb’s ongoing series on the top products of 2009:Top 10 Mobile Web Products of 2009Top 10 Consumer Web Apps of 2009Top 10 Semantic Web Products of 2009Change #1: No More Regional Networks Over the years, Facebook has grown from a tightly closed social network designed for connecting college students to an entirely open network which anyone and everyone can join. At first, Facebook’s privacy model revolved around “networks” – communities for your school, your region, or your company. “This worked well when Facebook was mostly used by students,” Zuckerberg writes, “since it made sense that a student might want to share content with their fellow students.” Over time, the company added more networks, including some for entire countries. But now, thanks to Facebook’s ever-growing popularity, these “regional” networks have grown so large that some have millions of members. The problem with networks of this size when it comes to privacy is that people who had opted in to sharing content with their network (via the setting share with my “networks and friends”) were inadvertently be sharing personal updates with far more people than they intended to. To address this issue, Facebook demoted cities and regions from being considered networks although the information still exists in user profiles, listed under “Current City” and/or “Current Region.” This update isn’t exactly news – the company revealed their plans to remove regional networks back in July of this year. Zuckerberg’s mentioning of this update seems to be more of a confirmation that indeed, this process is underway, than any sort of major announcement about a new direction for Facebook. Change #2: Control Who Sees Each Piece of Individual Content You Add or UploadA second privacy update involves Facebook’s plans to allow its users more control over individual pieces of content uploaded or added to the social network. This control will be implemented on a per-post basis through a mechanism dubbed the “Publisher Privacy Control.” Simply put, this change adds a new feature to the publisher box on Facebook – aka the status update box. From here, Facebook users post their status, upload photos and videos, and share links. At the moment, when you click the “Share” button, who sees that content is governed by settings tucked away under a cavalcade of menus (Settings -> Privacy Settings -> Profile -> Status and Links.)With the the upcoming Publisher Control functionality, already in beta testing, a new button featuring an image of lock will appear beneath the status update box. Click on this button and you’ll be able to choose precisely who is allowed to see that update or other piece of content (“everyone,” “friends,” “friends of friends,” etc.) Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Change #3: A Simplified Privacy PageFacebook’s granular privacy controls have always been sort of a blessing and curse for the social network. Although savvy users could drill down into each individual setting and adjust it to their needs, the majority of the site’s users don’t even know where these settings are, much less how to change them or to what. The problem, as noted above, is that many of the privacy settings are buried in a series of complex menus. Even if you can find the Privacy Page, the drop-down boxes and their lists of choices stump average users who aren’t sure what a setting like “my networks and friends” really means. To make privacy simpler, Facebook’s controls will be changed to permit sharing with three groups: “only friends,” “friends of friends,” or “everyone.” In addition, the Privacy Page itself will be simplified to combine some settings which currently overlap. This, too, was announced in July. Although neither post details specifically what settings will be combined, a quick glance at the Privacy Page allows for some speculation. Perhaps the “basic info” and “personal info” boxes will become one? There really isn’t that much distinction between the two, despite what their names imply. For example, “basic” information includes what many consider “personal” information such as birthday, hometown, and religious views. Meanwhile, the so-called “personal” information setting controls more innocuous content like favorite books and movie. The “Photos Tagged of You” and the “Videos Tagged of You” settings also seem like worthy contenders for combination. It seems that you’re either okay with people seeing content you’ve been tagged in by others or you’re not. Whether that’s a photo or video doesn’t really matter to most. However, these are just guesses, mind you – until the update goes live, there’s no way to tell what will and will not be changed. How the Transition Will OccurAlthough not mentioned by name in Zuckerberg’s blog post, the July post mentioned a new “Transition Tool” that would be rolled out to users to aid them in configuring the new settings. This is likely what Zuckerberg was referring to when he noted that “we’ll suggest settings for you…” With the Transition Tool, users are prompted to pick from different privacy level options like “open,” “recommended,” or “limited.” According to the recent post, the recommended settings will be based on your current level of privacy but you’ll be able to read through the other options to make changes if you so desire. In a late night post on Facebook’s company blog, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a round of upcoming changes that will affect all users of the social network. Specifically, the changes focus on new privacy controls for information sharing. For those who have been following Facebook closely, the announcement doesn’t deliver any new information, it only confirms some previously discussed plans. However, for Facebook’s user base, now 350 million strong, the updates represent a major overhaul as to how privacy is handled on the site. Related Posts Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification Tags:#Facebook#Features#news#NYT#social networks#web sarah perez A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit
Tag Archive: 大上海国际娱乐
The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification adam popescu Related Posts Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Tags:#education#privacy#security#surveillance Update: On Thursday, January 17, the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals denied the Rutherford Institute’s appeal toprohibit the removal of 15-year-old Andrea Hernandez from John Jay Science & Engineering Academy in San Antonio’s Northside School District, pending the outcome of her case. Hernandez had refused to wear an RFID tracker on religious grounds. The device, implemented to students in a pilot program, monitored her whereabouts while on campus. Hernandez’ attorney, John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, called the ruling a “sad statement on our nation’s growing intolerance for dissent and for those whose religious beliefs may differ from the mainstream.” Hernandez has asked school officials to respect her beliefs, let her use her old ID badge (without the tracking device), and let her stay in school. How far are we willing to go to protect our children? Do we trample their rights in the hope of making them safer? In the wake of serious school violence and tragedy, many would probably say we can’t possibly go too far. But at a magnet school in San Antonio, Texas, the recently launched Student Locator Project is putting that idea to the test. It’s a year-long pilot program tracking the on-campus location of 4,200 middle and high school students – requiring them to wear SmartID card badges with embedded radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking devices. The movements of the kids are being followed everywhere they go on school grounds, from the lunch room to the bathroom. Safer, Or Spied Upon?That’s right, San Antonio’s Northside School District – with 100,000 students total, the fourth-largest in the Lone Star State – is tracking students much the same way scientists follow endangered species. Or deliveries. Or sex offenders. This isn’t the first time tracking tags have been given to students, but unlike most earlier programs, this one is mandatory: It’s happening whether students – or their parents – are okay with it or not.And it’s all perfectly legal. A judge in Texas ruled on Tuesday that because students are on school property, the district has the right to enforce this rule. Caught in the middle is a 15-year-old sophomore named Andrea Hernandez, who was expelled for refusing to wear the badge. Her reasoning was deeply personal. She says it violates her religious beliefs.Hernandez, a devout Christian, viewed the badge as a mark of the beast, and her father filed suit. But U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia disagreed, calling the badge a “secular choice rather than a religious concern.” His ruling forces Hernandez to make a choice: She now has until the end of the current semester – January 18 – to provide written notice to the school as to whether she will wear the badge. (In a key concession, the district offered to let her wear a badge without the tracking chip, but she has so far refused.) Hernandez’s legal representation, the civil-liberties-focused Rutherford Institute, requested a temporary injunction to the district’s move while it prepares an appeal. Rutherford attorneys say that “the school’s attempts to penalize, discriminate and retaliate against Andrea violate her rights under Texas’ Religious Freedom Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”Safety? Or Cash?And they say the main motive for the tracking measure doesn’t even have anything to do with keeping students safe. Instead, it’s all about money. Improved school attendance rates increase funding. And that’s why the Rutherford Institute thinks the school is fighting so hard for this Big Brother program.“School officials hope that by expanding the program to the district’s 112 schools, they can secure up to $1.7 million in funding from the state government,” the Institute wrote on Tuesday.According to Texas law, school funds are distributed based on students being present – every day students miss class, their school loses money. The district claimed it lost $1.7 million a year due to truancy. In a recent NBC article, district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said the school is not trying to spy on students. Instead, he characterized the program as an attempt to make sure offenders aren’t tardy and make it to homeroom when the morning bell rings.The district describes the program this way on it’s website: “Northside ISD is harnessing the power of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) to make schools safer, know where our students are while at school, increase revenues, and provide a general purpose ‘smart’ ID card.”Fighting Back?“We’re in a really precarious state in this country when we’re debating a case like this,” says Hernandez’ attorney, John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. “In a state institution, can they force you into complete compliance,” Whitehead asks. “I say No.”Right now the girl is in school, and not wearing the badge. “All she wants is a regular ID,” Whitehead says, adding that he hopes his legal challenges will be effective. “I think we have a shot,” he says.” The Supreme Court may hear it.”But stopping the project – or even making it voluntary – won’t be easy. “There’s a lot of money to be made off of these things,” Whitehead notes. In Texas, AT&T is behind the RFID chips in question. “They’re going to go nationwide because of corporate interest.”More Than A Religious IssueFor Hernandez, this is a religious issue. But it’s absurd that it has come to that. Tracking people like packages is about the most obvious violation of privacy as could be imagined, especially when the students aren’t even suspected of doing anything wrong. Just because they’re children doesn’t mean they lose all their rights. And besides, in the San Antonio test, even their parents don’t get to opt out for them.Beyond the egregious invasion of privacy, there are very real negative effects to this kind of over-the-top supervision. Matthew Tollin, a Harvard-trained attorney and the founder of wireLawyer, says it can stifle individuality and free expression. “Just think about the chilling effect this could have on a child’s creativity and learning if they feel like everywhere they move they are being watched,” Tollin said. “It’s a very real concern and very real invasion of privacy as protected by our Bill of Rights.”And it only gets worse if, as planned, the Student Locator Project gets expanded to the entire district – or further.Images courtesy of Shutterstock. A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit
10 Success 9 Deeney Read more 27 Vydra 16 Defour 46 54 21 Femenia 31 McNeil BUR46WAT54% 18 Gray 6 Mee 27 Kabasele 12 Sema Burnley Lineups Share on Pinterest 10 Barnes Watford BUR WAT Possession 25 Holebas 18 Westwood 8 Cleverley Substitutes 11 Masina 6 Mariappa Share via Email 24 Wilmot 6 Watford Off target 9 Burnley 3 Watford On target 3 Burnley Share on Messenger 4 Cork Goal attempts 13 9 26 Foster Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook 20 Quina 1 Heaton 1 Gomes 29 Capoue resources 5 Tarkowski 3 Taylor (s 77′) Fouls 26 Bardsley 7 Deulofeu Corners Watford The Fiver: the Guardian’s take on the world of football 20 Hart 14 Gibson 9 Vokes 13 Hendrick Match stats Watford and Burnley are unbeaten since Boxing Day. Sean Dyche seems to have stumbled across a purple patch thanks largely due installing Tom Heaton back in goal. Heaton has conceded two goals in four successive Burnley wins since Joe Hart conceded five to Everton. Goals still come at a premium for Dyche though as illustrated by miraculously beating Fulham 2-1 without a single shot on target. Watford will miss Will Hughes through concussion but Troy Deeney has hit form with four goals in six matches. Graham Searles Saturday 3pmVenue Vicarage RoadLast season Watford 1 Burnley 2Referee Michael OliverThis season G18 Y49 R5 3 cards/gameOdds H 4-6 A 5-1 D 3-1WATFORDSubs from Dahlberg, Gomes, Chalobah, Wilmot, Britos, Cleverley, Janmaat, Quina, Success, Prödl, Peñaranda, Gray, Kabasele, NavarroDoubtful Gray (leg), Kabasele (shoulder)Injured Hughes (concussion, Feb)Suspended NoneDiscipline Y41 R2Form WWLDDWLeading scorer Pereyra 6BURNLEYSubs from Hart, Lindegaard, Pope, Vydra, Defour, Vokes, Gibson, Gudmundsson, Bardsley, WardDoubtful Bardsley (knock), Gudmundsson (thigh), Lowton (knock)Injured Lennon (knee, unknown)Suspended Brady (last of three)Discipline Y45 R1Form LLLWWWLeading scorer Barnes 4 28 Long Topics 3 Britos 1 7 Match previews Burnley Substitutes (s 56′) 37 Pereyra 11 Wood Share on Twitter Premier League Share on WhatsApp 2 Lowton Reuse this content
Now playing: Watch this: More From Roadshow 42 Photos Porsche 2019 Chevy Malibu review: Swing and a miss 19 Photos 2020 Hyundai Palisade review: Posh enough to make Genesis jealous 0 Enlarge ImageFor a few moments, the Taycan will put down over 700 horsepower. Yowza.By this time next week, we’ll finally have seen Porsche’s long-awaited Taycan electric sedan. Ahead of time, there are new details still spilling out about the electric car, and this tidbit is one for the power-hungry driver.Per a drive preview from Autocar, the range-topping Porsche Taycan supposedly sports an overboost function that will help the car produce over 700 horsepower for a period of time. That’s Dodge Challenger Hellcat territory, minus any engine emissions. Reportedly, this range-topping car will be split into Taycan Turbo and Taycan Turbo S designations — a goofy nomenclature considering there are no turbos onboard, but I digress.The overboost function activates for 2.5 seconds to unlock 700-plus horsepower and supposedly helps send the electric car from 0 to 60 mph in under 3 seconds. Porsche has long been keen to point out the Taycan will absolutely house the company’s spirit and performance, and so far, the German marque appears to be delivering.It’s likely the overboost function played a key part in the car’s 7:42 Nurburgring Nordschleife run. While the lap time didn’t set any overall lap records, it is the fastest four-door electric car around the 12.8-mile circuit. Porsche also showcased the fact its upcoming electric sedan can go from 0 to 124 mph and back in just 10 seconds — multiple times in a testament to the battery-electric powertrain’s grunt.Without the overboost, we’re likely looking at around 600 hp for the range-topping Taycan along with a 300-mile range. Expect other models to fill the lineup with less performance and shorter ranges. We’ll have the full details when Porsche is ready to show the car off in September. Tags Porsche Taycan on ice in Sweden 2020 BMW M340i review: A dash of M makes everything better Post a comment Now playing: Watch this: Electric Cars Performance Cars 2019 Chevy Malibu review: Swing and a miss Share your voice 1:29 Ice drifting in Porsche’s all-electric Taycan More From Roadshow Share your voice Goodyear Oxygene is a living, connected tire 2020 BMW M340i review: A dash of M makes everything better Electric Cars Auto Tech 2020 Hyundai Palisade review: Posh enough to make Genesis jealous Porsche,Sono calls the moss-filled dash BreSono and uses it to filter incoming air. Sono Typically, if you had moss in the interior of your car, that would be considered a bad thing. That’s not necessarily the case for this small, solar-powered electric vehicle from German startup Sono.The Sono Sion uses the moss, which is covered with a transparent panel, thankfully, and according to a report Thursday by Electrek, it’s part of the Sion’s cabin air filtering system. Unlike the moss inside Goodyear’s Oxygene tire concept, this moss has kicked the proverbial bucket, but because of its structure, it’s still a good filter.The Sion was conceived as a low-cost EV and debuted back in March with a 35 kilowatt-hour battery and a body covered in solar panels, but this is the first we’re seeing of its interior. The rest of the passenger cabin is pretty sparse, with a small digital instrument binnacle in front of the driver and a Tesla Model 3-like central screen sprouting from the dash.Enlarge ImageIn addition to the mossy dash, the Sono Sion is slathered in solar panels to help keep its 35 kWh battery topped up. Sono The Sion was initially marketed for the low, low price of $18,000 but — and this might be a little shocking (pun intended) — the battery pack costs extra. That is estimated to cost an additional $10,500 if bought outright, or there would be a monthly fee. I know that sounds weird, but it’s not unheard of in Europe — the Renault Zoe is sold this way.It’s unlikely that we’ll ever see the Sono Sion on our roads here in the US, but the company says it should enter production for Europe sometime in the latter half of 2020. Goodyear’s Oxygene tire is actually alive 0 Tags 5:27 Post a comment
Gazipur City CorporationThe Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday deferred to Thursday the hearing on the appeal petitions filed challenging the High Court order that stayed Gazipur City Corporation (GCC) election for three months.The four-member bench of the Appellate Division led by chief justice Syed Mahmud Hossain took the decision following the request of the election commission as it will file another appeal petition challenging stay order on Gazipur city election, reports UNB.The EC made a request to the Appellate Division on Wednesday morning to defer the hearing on the two petitions filed by two mayoral candidates – Hasan Uddin Sarkar of Awami League and Zahangir Alam of BNP -over the stay order on GCC election until Thursday, said lawyer Obaidur Rahman Mostafa, a counsel of the EC.He said, “We are going to file a petition with the Appellate Division challenging the stay order on Gazipur City Corporation polls today (Wednesday).”Earlier on Tuesday, the election commission decided to appeal with the Appellate Division challenging the High Court order at a meeting chaired by chief election commissioner KM Nurul Huda at Nirbhachan Bhaban in the city.Awami League mayoral candidate Zahangir Alam filed a petition with the Appellate Division bench of the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order staying the Gazipur City Corporation (GCC) election for three months on Tuesday.The chamber judge of the Appellate Division justice Hasan Foyez Siddique sent the petitions to the full-bench of the appellate division after hearing on the two petitions.Earlier on Monday, BNP mayoral candidate Hasan Uddin Sarkar filed a petition with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.On 6 May, the HC stayed the Gazipur City Corporation election, which was scheduled to be held on 15 May, for three months.It also issued a rule asking the government to explain as to why the inclusion of six moujas of Dhaka district into GCC should not be declared illegal.The government on 16 January 2013 published a gazette incorporating six moujas of Shimulia union of Savar upazila (South Boroibari, Domna, Shibrampur, West Panishail, South Panishail and Domnag) under Gazipur City Corporation but according to law, GCC was formed with Gazipur and Tongi municipalities.ABM Azharul Islam Suruj, Shimulia union parishad chairman of Savar, filed the writ on Sunday morning challenging the legality of the gazette as the election commission announced the election schedule incorporating six moujas of Dhaka district, which is illegal.Chief election commissioner KM Nurul Huda announced the election schedule for Gazipur and Khulna city corporations on 31 March.