eCommerce has been hoisted as the most influential economic phenomena known to man. When you think of this association, names like eBay or Amazon come to mind in a near ornate fashion. eCommerce has introduced some of the most creative means to garner revenue across the broad network of consumers offered by the world wide web. It saves a lot of time, a lot of money, and it enables some businesses to compete without much overhead cost at all. Although, there are a few bad apples in the bunch. Some internet sites benefit immensely from the unwitting efforts of users that are pilfered for the sake of profit.
Websites like Ancestry and Classmates rely entirely on a volunteer user database in order to profit. They reel you in with the idea that you may be reconnected with an old friend or that you may learn something you did not know about your family history. What they do not make clear to the user is, that as soon as you sign up and participate in their scheme, your information (email, name, location, and a slew of very personal information) becomes their product to sell to anyone willing to pay for it. Their privacy policies may include provisions restricting the transfer of a user's information to third-party marketers, but the entire premise of their business model relies on other users requesting your information and thus the other users pay a subscription fee in order to get your information. Albeit, this activity may never result in a negative experience for the user but at the same time, the user is never compensated for providing the information that is essential to these companies interests.
Is it truly legal for these entities to basically sell the personal information of its users, garnering revenues of nearly $400 million between the two in 2008? Is it a respectable practice to gather information about a non-user's family or ancestry in order to sell that information to anyone who pays for it? Because, even if you are not a member of the Ancestry website they blatantly advertise that your family history is there to be reviewed by anyone who pays for it. Even if you never subscribe to Classmates, merely signing up out of curiosity puts you into their database and then your information is used to entice others' to subscribe so that they may contact you.
These two websites are similar but also different. Classmates seemingly withdraws it's liability since the user volunteered the information. Ancestry simply uses public records or information provided by paid and non-paid users to compile a wealth of information that a non-user has no choice but to allow them to sell. Could that really be true?
Both sites use photographs as selling points. Classmates relies on the user to upload the photos, while Ancestry will obtain this graphic information any way it can (public record, google photos, yearbooks, news archives, etc).
It is astonishing how these companies have been able to benefit from the ill-thought decisions of it's users. In the wake of such media fervor over Facebook's use (or free trade) of personal information, why hasn't there been more talk about how Classmates and Ancestry make their millions. Perhaps it is all just the user's fault for not using elementary logic before typing in their personal information.
Mr. Polysyllabic
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Shirley Sherrod debacle
On July 19, 2010 conservative blogger Andrew Brietbart posted an excerpt of a speech in which then US Dept of Agriculture Director of Rural Development for the State of Georgia, Shirley Sherrod detailed an incident where she admits that she used poor judgment in relation to providing Government services to a struggling white farmer in rural Georgia. The feud that followed has steadily grown into a nationwide debate concerning the social interests of organizations like the NAACP and the national Tea Party movement.
In an effort to minimize criticism regarding the events featured in the video excerpt, the NAACP has categorized the video release as "edited" when in fact the portion of the video Brietbart posted was not edited in any way, rather it was just a segment of a speech that was some 43 minutes in duration.
In the segmented video, viewers will see and hear a Government employee depict an incident where a struggling farmer had requested assistance from his Gov't in order to help his family and farm survive in an increasingly dismal agricultural market. The speech was given to an audience of NAACP members on March 27, 2010. Within this speech, Sherrod did not only describe how she discriminated the man based on the color of his skin, but as well, she accused the man of being racist towards her. These descriptions were met with snickers and laughter from the audience on several occasions. She admits that rather than refer this man to the best possible person to help him, she referred him to someone "of his own kind." She states that at the time, she figured that "one of them" would be the most appropriate to handle his case.
The rudimentary defense to Sherrod's statement was that her entire speech was highlighting her growth as a civil servant and person, that her perception at the time was an error and that the parameters of her job was not to assist people based on race but based on need. "Its not about black or white.." she says, but then she also says "it is about black and white." A very confusing statement from the point-of-view of someone hearing the statement. A statement that members of the audience showed favor to through laughter and praise.
It is true that, the excerpt cast the NAACP in a poor light. Many people who have reviewed the excerpt in conjunction with the entire speech have stated that the video clip was not entirely accurate in regard to the intention of her words. Sherrod was subsequently forced to resign her position with the USDA and also roundly criticized throughout the media and social circles.
Her response to the release of this video was not to apologize, she did not repudiate those in the audience for seemingly validating her previous behavior. She did not take much personal responsibility for her statements or how they were delivered, rather, she has resolved to shift the blame from herself and the NAACP to the man who brought this incident to light, Mr. Brietbart. Sherrod has taken significant effort to deny that what she said was wrong, or at least in poor judgment. She has painstakingly manipulated the entire incident into a civil litigation suit again the blogger, rather than just apologize or convey to those in attendance that her words and their response was wrong.
Brietbart claims that the intention of his post was not to demonize Sherrod or to provoke her superiors to dismiss her from her position. He asserts that he posted this excerpt in response to recent NAACP accusations toward the Tea Party movement, that the Tea Party is an organization that harbors racists and promotes a racist agenda. His goal was to level the field by pointing out the NAACP is just as culpable, if not more, than the Tea Party when it comes to endorsing racism. The video excerpt he posted appears to make that point very clear for everyone. To deny that those in attendance for Sherrod's presentation did not react to her stories in a manner that endorses racism is just foolhardy. To deny that her words were at the very least confusing is also an act of willful ignorance.
Sherrod's commitment to a lawsuit in response to this matter could stand to unravel the fabric of free-speech in this country. Her entire case relies on an opinion of personal injury arising from factual documentation of her statements. If she were to prevail in this case, what could that mean for the rest of us?
Here is a comparison, say you are out walking with a video camera in your hand, recording whatever you see. After a while you see a man approaching a dog in the middle of the street. You focus your lens upon the man in time to capture the man kicking the dog very hard. So hard that the dog is lifted into the air and hurled to the side of the street. You continue to record the incident as you also see a vehicle that had been speeding in the direction of the dog and that it was imminent that vehicle would collide with the canine had the man not intervened. Now, you go home and upload that video to your YouTube account or blog but you only post the portion of the video that shows the man kicking the dog and not that the man only did so to prevent the dog from being run over. Would it be okay for that man to sue you because you did not include the entire video? Is it just, that because your video cast that man in a negative light that he is now able to request judgment against you for not making him look good in your video?
This entire debacle really has spun out of control. Shirley Sherrod has been very stubborn about the incident, she refuses to take responsibility for her words but rather, she expects an observer to take the responsibility for her.
Here is one last question about this situation. Given the fact that Sherrod has admitted to behaving in a racist manner in the past, could it stand to reason that she would not have maintained her current stance had the man who posted the video been an African-American? Discuss.
-Mr. Polsysllabic
In an effort to minimize criticism regarding the events featured in the video excerpt, the NAACP has categorized the video release as "edited" when in fact the portion of the video Brietbart posted was not edited in any way, rather it was just a segment of a speech that was some 43 minutes in duration.
In the segmented video, viewers will see and hear a Government employee depict an incident where a struggling farmer had requested assistance from his Gov't in order to help his family and farm survive in an increasingly dismal agricultural market. The speech was given to an audience of NAACP members on March 27, 2010. Within this speech, Sherrod did not only describe how she discriminated the man based on the color of his skin, but as well, she accused the man of being racist towards her. These descriptions were met with snickers and laughter from the audience on several occasions. She admits that rather than refer this man to the best possible person to help him, she referred him to someone "of his own kind." She states that at the time, she figured that "one of them" would be the most appropriate to handle his case.
The rudimentary defense to Sherrod's statement was that her entire speech was highlighting her growth as a civil servant and person, that her perception at the time was an error and that the parameters of her job was not to assist people based on race but based on need. "Its not about black or white.." she says, but then she also says "it is about black and white." A very confusing statement from the point-of-view of someone hearing the statement. A statement that members of the audience showed favor to through laughter and praise.
It is true that, the excerpt cast the NAACP in a poor light. Many people who have reviewed the excerpt in conjunction with the entire speech have stated that the video clip was not entirely accurate in regard to the intention of her words. Sherrod was subsequently forced to resign her position with the USDA and also roundly criticized throughout the media and social circles.
Her response to the release of this video was not to apologize, she did not repudiate those in the audience for seemingly validating her previous behavior. She did not take much personal responsibility for her statements or how they were delivered, rather, she has resolved to shift the blame from herself and the NAACP to the man who brought this incident to light, Mr. Brietbart. Sherrod has taken significant effort to deny that what she said was wrong, or at least in poor judgment. She has painstakingly manipulated the entire incident into a civil litigation suit again the blogger, rather than just apologize or convey to those in attendance that her words and their response was wrong.
Brietbart claims that the intention of his post was not to demonize Sherrod or to provoke her superiors to dismiss her from her position. He asserts that he posted this excerpt in response to recent NAACP accusations toward the Tea Party movement, that the Tea Party is an organization that harbors racists and promotes a racist agenda. His goal was to level the field by pointing out the NAACP is just as culpable, if not more, than the Tea Party when it comes to endorsing racism. The video excerpt he posted appears to make that point very clear for everyone. To deny that those in attendance for Sherrod's presentation did not react to her stories in a manner that endorses racism is just foolhardy. To deny that her words were at the very least confusing is also an act of willful ignorance.
Sherrod's commitment to a lawsuit in response to this matter could stand to unravel the fabric of free-speech in this country. Her entire case relies on an opinion of personal injury arising from factual documentation of her statements. If she were to prevail in this case, what could that mean for the rest of us?
Here is a comparison, say you are out walking with a video camera in your hand, recording whatever you see. After a while you see a man approaching a dog in the middle of the street. You focus your lens upon the man in time to capture the man kicking the dog very hard. So hard that the dog is lifted into the air and hurled to the side of the street. You continue to record the incident as you also see a vehicle that had been speeding in the direction of the dog and that it was imminent that vehicle would collide with the canine had the man not intervened. Now, you go home and upload that video to your YouTube account or blog but you only post the portion of the video that shows the man kicking the dog and not that the man only did so to prevent the dog from being run over. Would it be okay for that man to sue you because you did not include the entire video? Is it just, that because your video cast that man in a negative light that he is now able to request judgment against you for not making him look good in your video?
This entire debacle really has spun out of control. Shirley Sherrod has been very stubborn about the incident, she refuses to take responsibility for her words but rather, she expects an observer to take the responsibility for her.
Here is one last question about this situation. Given the fact that Sherrod has admitted to behaving in a racist manner in the past, could it stand to reason that she would not have maintained her current stance had the man who posted the video been an African-American? Discuss.
-Mr. Polsysllabic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)