Twitter has got your back!

Privacy in the digital age means a lot of things to a lot of people. From social networks to government surveillance, people always seem to be concerned.
But let's not kid ourselves. Complaining about privacy has become nothing but a way to express the "geek side" or an additional item to the black geek glasses to complete the "geeky look" . For all the complaining, no one is going to do much about it. Hence the sense of what is private shrinks.

However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted its annual report (Who has your back?) on which Internet vendors do the most to help protect their users' private information.

The most privacy-oriented companies should comply with these policies:

1. Requiring a Warrant for Content
2. Telling Users About Government Data Requests
3. Publishing Transparency Reports
4. Publishing Law Enforcement Guidelines
5. Fighting for Users’ Privacy in Court
6. Fighting for Users’ Privacy in Congress

2013 Results

Although these results might not comply with your expectations, you must keep in mind that the report is about the government access to user's data.

"We’re happy to report that several of the companies included in last year’s report have significantly improved their practices and policies concerning government access to user data"
  
"Readers of this year’s annual privacy and transparency report should be heartened, as we are,by the improvements major online service providers made over the last year."

In the end,  EFF thinks that things are getting better among these vendors that deal with so much user data, and it seems that they're really happy with Twitter's improvement:

"This year two companies received all six possible stars: Sonic.net and Twitter. We are extremely pleased to recognize the outstanding commitment each of these companies has made to public transparency around government access to user data."

and a bit disappointed with Google's latest statement:

"We notify users about legal demands when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order."

To read the full EFF annual report: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/who-has-your-back-2013-report.pdf

The end of the web as we know it... Maybe.

Nowadays, the usage of web and internet for many users is limited to social media activities.
And sadly, it's not just me talking these are some statistics that prove it:

• Social apps are particularly popular, with consumers increasing their social app time by 76%, and spending more than seven times more minutes on apps than on mobile web.
• Social networks still dominate internet usage, with 20% of PC time and 30% of mobile time spent on them: over any other category of site. And Facebook dominates that, with 17% of PC time spent on the site.
• People aged 25-34 are most likely to use social media in the office, with over half saying they do so.
• 76% of people felt positive after participating in social networking, and key words used were "connected" and "informed".
•  Professional benefits were also a consideration, with access to business networks and a person’s number of connections both benefits listed
• 26% don’t mind being targeted to them based on their profile info.
  Read the Full report by Nielsen Blog.

So, it quite obvious that any change that would occurs on social medias will eventually affect the web, and change it.

For this article, we will be talking Facebook as example.
I know that comments are flooding the blog, but feel free to tell me why do you think people want to advertize on Facebook?
The huge traffic? The abnormal influence over people's lives?
Well yes. But how Facebook got to be so successful? The answer is very clear here; By using your personal data and private information to target you with ads.

I know what you're thinking now, I'd rather get ads that interests me than keep getting ads that I can't relate to in any way.(Don't deny it, statistics shows that 26% of you agree with this saying.)

Well, for these 26% and for others that always felt that Facebook is their home; I'm very sad to announce that someone called Eduardo Ustaran doesn't agree with you.(BTW he's the head of privacy and information at law company Field Fisher Waterhouse. )
The law in question is the draft European Data Protection Regulation that is to be put before the European Parliament.  The legislation would cause havoc for companies that use their users data to sell advertising, so would include Facebook, GMail and others. Read about this law.

So, if the EU voted for the law, there is no question that the web would never be the way it was. For many of you.

What does it mean? 

I'm sorry that you're hearing this from me, but simply, it means that maybe Facebook will lose it's monetizing plan. So, they will probably, consider a new way to monetizing their site that they have never considered before: Charging you to access Facebook. (Yes! You.)

So, after you heard my news, let's make it a first and see some commenting that isn't spamming. I would like to know if you would pay for Facebook.
Would you pay to like? Comment? Share? Reveal you most intimate information?

If you're not paying for it, you're the product

This might be the shortest blog post ever but it's something that came to my mind when I was reading about the Instagram backlash and I had to share it.
And this is more like a message to every "facebooker" or "instagramer" out there who gets shocked every time a line get added to the terms of service and to every wise-a$$ who goes through these terms line by line trying to show us how they get to screw us. So here it is :

WTF did you expect? Where do you think you're Living?? Utopia??

This is the real world.. Nothing is free.

And here's an old comment that got famous from "Metafilter" that describe it best:

National Geographic suspends new Instagram posts over new terms

Famed purveyor of awesome photography is 'very concerned' 

By Chris Smith  21 hrs ago On techradar.com

 

The backlash against Instagram's new terms of service has continued, despite the company's claim that it isn't planning to sell photos posted on the site.
National Geographic, the magazine famous for its top-notch snaps, said on Tuesday that it was suspending all posts to the Facebook-owned service beyond the current 714 uploads.
In a post on its Instagram feed, the publication said it was 'very concerned' by the new terms threatened to delete its NatGeo account completely, unless the policy is changed.
"@NatGeo is suspending new posts to Instagram. We are very concerned with the direction of the proposed new terms of service and if they remain as presented we may close our account," the post read.

Open to interpretation

Following the public outing of its controversial new privacy policy and terms of service documents on Monday, Instagram has been taking an almighty hiding from all comers.
The new terms requested that Instagram be given the rights to harvest users' photographs and likeness in advertisements without any reparations to the person who posted them.
It stated: "To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata) and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
On Tuesday, co-founder Kevin Systrom, claimed that the document had been misinterpreted and that it would soon be republished with different wording to make things clearer.
He wrote: "It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing.
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

Reversed or reworded?

In the case of National Geographic, which has almost 650,000 followers, it is unclear whether the publication wants the new policy to be reversed or whether it simply wants the language to be altered.
It will be interesting to see if more high profile users of the service follow suit and the effect this has on how the policy reappears to the world.