You buy cheap compazine internet can also refer to these articles about Xeljanz and Humira buy generic arcoxia or talk with your doctor or pharmacist. To learn more order discount zoloft online effects about the conditions Cyltezo is approved to treat, see the buy generic zithromax online "Cyltezo uses" section in this article. Taking an ambulance to toradol for sale the hospital can help speed up someone's diagnosis and treatment, order cheapest lipitor no prescription consultation which can help improve outcomes. However, this article should not certified advair be used as a substitute for the knowledge and expertise buy generic cialis side effects of a licensed healthcare professional. Liver damage wasn't reported in estradiol medication clinical studies, but there have been reports of liver damage tetracycline without rx since the drug was first approved. Daily Harvest packs the cialis internet food with dry ice to keep it frozen and delivers get amikacin on the day the customer chooses. So one could conclude that.

Some estimates of the value of Facebook run as high as $15 billion. How can that be? It’s just some software and some people, right?

Wrong. It’s data about who hundreds of millions of people know, and who those people know, and how often they communicate, and what they are interested in. Every time someone agrees to be your Facebook friend, the two of you have established a link in Facebook’s gigantic friendship graph. Even the fact that you asked that person is probably recorded somewhere, even if he or she ignores you.

As far as I know, the connections between Reverend Wright and Barack Obama, and between Reverend Hagee and John McCain, were not discovered by electronic sleuthing. But such connections are going to be easier to discover in the future than in the past. Facebook data would be a gold mine, but it won’t help much if you decide to stay off such social networking sites. It’s easy for computers to connect people whose names appeared together in old newspaper articles. Photos and videos will be subject to face recognition, so it will be possible to build a huge “appears-in-the-same-image-with” graph automatically. Public figures will have to worry more and more about their associations, as it looks like the public interest in their circle of acquaintances will not diminish anytime soon.

And the power of the government to create such structures of social connections will be even greater than what can be gathered from public sources. The UK may implement a massive data aggregation system, including data on every phone call, email, and instant message in the nation. The fight against terror demands such ubiquitous surveillance, goes the claim.

Would we live our lives differently, fearing that our everyday social contacts, and our adventurous escapades, are all going to wind up in the government’s great social network? How will the world change when clumsy attempts at romantic outreach, phone calls placed to wrong numbers, and group photos snapped at parties all turn into contextless edges in that permanent, all-encompassing social graph?

This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm and is filed under Privacy, Social computing, Surveillance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.