privacy policy

The Russian-made app is backed by a far-reaching legal document. As are many other apps you use on a daily basis.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) thinks the Facebook CEO should be held "individually liable" for his company's "repeated violations of American's privacy."
Major retailers are likely to have installed beacons in their physical stores, allowing shopping apps you have downloaded
Data is being used by businesses in innovative and illustrious ways to generate widespread value. Companies should be as inventive in respecting users' wishes without inhibiting data's exponential promise for economic growth.
Many of the Yik Yaks of the world will continue to exist in the near future, but in time only as the seedy side of the Internet, the lawless part of town where law-abiding citizens with conscience choose not to frequent.
American ingenuity is alive and well. We've changed the rules of the game, invented new playing fields, and blazed new paths. Europeans would admit this reality as much as we do ourselves. The divide therefore comes when Europe thinks these services don't protect the individual.
One thing Apple doesn't store is FaceTime data, which would be a huge and expensive storage undertaking. 2. Some fairly personal
I've got to be connected -- we all do today. And I've always loved tech -- particularly the helpful kind built by entrepreneurs who respect and honor their customers.
In the grand scheme of things, a public tiff between Apple and Google emphasizes how important online privacy has become in the eyes of industry titans and the masses their products cater to.
I believe we have already and will continue to see real change in the coming years as users take back the Internet and hold service providers more accountable for their actions.
Part instant messaging client, part Siri-type virtual assistant, Emu can monitor everything you are talking about when you chat. Objectively, such an app sounds useful. But that's not the reality here, not when there's profitability involved based on your private data.
What will become of this suit? I suppose it could be dismissed but based on Schrems track record, I doubt it. And if people continue to join the suit, then this case will become less a thorn in the side for Facebook and more the privacy shot heard round the world.
At the end of the day we are not customers to Facebook rather we are products that offer cash potential to advertisers (their true customers) based on every online move we make. Facebook knows it. We know it. Zuckasaurus knows it.
Facebook is doing everything it can to rebuild another you, faster, stronger, more perfect, and more capable of maximizing the profit it hopes to extract with advertisers. Sound farfetched? Not when you throw in the opening an English investigation as to whether Facebook violated data protection laws with its actions.
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts feels that if a social media company states that they have access to view and analyze your posts, content, and relationships, then that ought to be fair game for the government (and law enforcement), too.
The Silicon Valley tech giants want to reform government surveillance on the Internet? That's what they say, anyway.
On May 13, the ECJ rained on Google's anti-privacy parade by ruling that people can ask Google to delete sensitive information from its Internet search results. On the surface, you would think that online privacy advocates would refer to this court decision as the shot heard round the world -- only it's not and here's why.
Which is worse: pursuing a scorched earth policy towards online privacy while claiming to "do no evil" or blatantly lying about yourself as an important online privacy application? I would vote for the latter.