By happy coincidence, just as I posted about the Privacy Manifesto for Web 2.0, I found Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja’s article saying that privacy laws have failed to keep up with the information revolution.
Privacy Manifesto for Web 2.0
As everyone pours their personal lives into Facebook et al, what happens to it? Some companies reckon they own it all. Others reckon they can change the rules at any time, and just tell you afterwards.
Alec Saunders has proposed a Privacy Manifesto for the Web 2.0 Era (and you can follow that link for some discussion of the why):
- Every customer has the right to know what private information is being collected. That rules out any secret data collection schemes, as well as monitoring regimes that the customer hasn’t agreed to in advance. It also rules out any advertising scheme that relies on leaving cookies on a customer’s hard disk without the customer’s consent.
- Every customer has the right to know the purpose for which the data is being collected, in advance. Corporations must spell out their intent, in advance, and not deviate from that intent. Reasonable limits must be imposed on the collection of personal information that are consistent with the purpose for which it is being collected. Furthermore, the common practice of inserting language into privacy policies stating that the terms may be modified without notice should be banned. If the corporation collecting data wishes to change its policy then it’s incumbent upon the corporation to obtain the consent of customers in advance.
- Each customer owns his or her personal information. Corporations may not sell that information to others without the customer’s consent. Customers may ask, at any time, to review the personal information collected; to have the information corrected, if that information is in error; and to have the information removed from the corporation’s database.
- Customers have a right to expect that those collecting their personal information will store it securely. Employees and other individuals who have access to that data must treat it with the same level of care as the organization collecting it is expected to.
Hat tip to Peter Black.
Send the wife in first, eh Thaksin?
Perhaps my Prediction number 6 for 2008 won’t come true. The wife of former Thai president Thaksin Shinawatra, returned to Bangkok yesterday and was immediately taken to the Supreme Court to face corruption charges. Pojaman Shinawatra, 51, was charged with using her husband’s influence to buy real estate at one-third its value. She was released on bail of 5 million baht ($171,400) and ordered not to leave the country.
Mainstream Media
Check this great little TV advert for “the mainstream media”. Amusing. Hat tip to Peter Black.
Hitler not such a monster after all?
What do you think of Daniel Eatock’s “modern” version of Adolf Hitler (pictured)? He actually looks quite striking, does he not? Follow the link and you’ll see a similar treatment of Winston Churchill too.
Whenever we see Hitler on TV, he’s rendered in slow motion and we hear the droning, threatening music. The message is extremely unsubtle: This Man Is A Monster.
I think it’s dangerous to depict Hitler that way.
Yes, of course Hitler was a monster. But if we ever need to deal with another charismatic, psychotic, genocidal maniac there won’t be some invisible orchestra playing the theme from Jaws so we can spot him. We’ll have to figure it out for ourselves.
That’ll be tough. Just as Hitler and his mates used the best media technology and techniques of their age to craft their public image, any new Hitler-esque politician will do the same. Their PR agency will craft an image we can relate to. If they’re a Rising Star of politics, the magazines will commission photo shoots — and it’ll all look something like this photo.
Continue reading “Hitler not such a monster after all?”Writing to be heard
My old photographer mate Jay has noticed that I write in “spoken English”.
Stil, you write as you sound, or you sound as you write. Every paragraph has the voice of radio.
Yes, Jay, you’re right. And it’s deliberate. I write so that my words can be read aloud and “sound good”.
I don’t know whether there’s any evidence to back it up, but my theory is that when people read the speech centres of their brain are also active. If so, then I reckon the communication will be more effective, more memorable, if it triggers the natural rhythms of good speech.
When I’m writing, I’m usually sounding out the words in my head. When it comes to the final draft. I usually read it aloud — several times as I polish it.
And to make sure I get the “tone” right, I sometimes use a trick that Keith Conlon taught me. I imagine a specific person sitting across the desk from me. It all helps to write in a more natural style, as one human talking with another.