<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Fistick21</id>
	<title>Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Fistick21"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Special:Contributions/Fistick21"/>
	<updated>2026-09-28T13:16:40Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Thoughts&amp;diff=3173</id>
		<title>Day 7 Thoughts</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Thoughts&amp;diff=3173"/>
		<updated>2012-07-16T09:05:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Fistick21: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PAUrFK Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work!...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opt-Out Programs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally I believe that CAN-SPAM requires that opt-out has to be free to the user.  CAN-SPAM failed for a lot of reasons, whereas the do-not-call registry has comparatively succeeded--would be interesting to discuss why.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transfer of Ownership==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What happens when formerly trustworthy companies get sold?  Should the data submitted by users be transferred?  This is a very real threat--Friendster and Spock were recently acquired (the latter by Intelius--see http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/29/spock-and-intelius-uh-oh/).  Mint.com was also acquired by Intuit, but imagine if they had been acquired by a telemarketing firmâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mozilla Privacy Icons==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;We have created an internal page on this wiki for [[Terms of Service Brainstorming|Brainstorming Ideas]] for this project&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m still not convinced that there is an actual problem here to solve (or rather, whether the problem is so severe as to require the hammer of a browser icon convention).  In some ways I feel like people have already voted with their widespread usage of sites like MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, and Google despite the lack of a privacy icon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the &amp;quot;lock&amp;quot; you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL.  It&#039;d be interesting to examine the origin of this convention.  I&#039;d argue that in this case there *was* an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Resources==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.jocnou.info Jocuri]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Fistick21</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>