Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - FAA wants all aircraft flying on unleaded fuel by 2018 (networkworld.com)

Submitted by coondoggie
coondoggie writes: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018. The FAA says there are approximately 167,000 aircraft in the United States and a total of 230,000 worldwide that rely on the current 100 octane, low lead fuel for safe operation. It is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains the addition of tetraethyl lead (TEL), a toxic substance, to create the very high octane levels needed for high-performance aircraft engines. Operations with inadequate octane can result in engine failures, the FAA noted.
Privacy

Submission + - The New Facebook Ads: Another Privacy Debacle? (concurringopinions.com)

Submitted by
privacyprof
privacyprof writes: "Facebook recently announced a new advertising scheme called "Social Ads." Instead of using celebrities to hawk products, it will use pictures of Facebook users. Facebook might be entering into another privacy debacle. Facebook assumes that if people rate products highly or write good things about a product then they consent to being used in an advertisement for it. But such an assumption is wrong. When Facebook created a system that notified people's friends about new changes to people's profiles, the result was outrage. Facebook thought that there wasn't a privacy problem since the information was public. But as I argue in my book, The Future of Reputation,, Facebook didn't understand that privacy amounts to much more than keeping secrets — it involves controlling accessibility to personal data. With Social Ads, Facebook is again misunderstanding privacy — just because people say positive things about a product does not mean that they want to be used to shill it. People whose images are used in an advertisement without their consent might be able to sue under the tort of appropriation of name or likeness: "One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy." Restatement (Second) of Torts 652C."
Privacy

Submission + - Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" Argument 1

Submitted by privacyprof
privacyprof writes: One of the most common responses of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is "I've got nothing to hide." According to the "nothing to hide" argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The "nothing to hide" argument is quite prevalent. Is there a way to respond to the "nothing to hide" argument that would really register with people in the general public? In a short essay, "I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Professor Daniel Solove takes on the "nothing to hide" argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.

Comment Wikipedia, Defamation, and Anonymity (Score 2, Interesting) 368

by privacyprof (#14191504) Attached to: Wikipedia to Restrict Creation of Articles
I am a law professor who specializes in information privacy law. If you're interested, I have blogged extensively about this case in many posts: Curtailing Anonymity on Wikipedia Fake Biographies on Wikipedia This is on the Adam Curry case: Wiki Thyself I also blogged about an earlier potential defamation case on Wikipedia: Suing Wikipedia Posts on anonymity: A Victory for Anonymous Blogging Is Anonymous Blogging Possible? Using Lawsuits to Unmask Anonymous Bloggers

Slashdot Top Deals

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner

Close