Blown To Bits

The Two Faces of Internet Privacy

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 by Harry Lewis
The buy generic prozac alternative liquid app stores data so a person can understand how their drug estradiol lifestyle affects their blood pressure fluctuation over the day. Anecdotal diclofenac overnight delivery evidence suggests if people were to drink alcohol straight after order cheap toradol sale dosage Botox, it may affect the skin's recovery. After a heart buy generic celexa alternative liquid attack, a perfusion scan can assess damage to the heart viagra prices muscle and help doctors identify areas with reduced blood flow, buy clomid no rx which can guide treatment decisions and rehabilitation plans. For more discount cialis without prescription comprehensive information about these two drugs, you can refer to buy generic viagra no prescription usa our Humira and Entyvio articles. However, the findings indicate an estradiol valerate sale association between typical sun exposure and shingles in males but price of viagra not females. Apis mellifica is a homeopathic treatment derived from retin-a without prescription the venom of Western honeybees (Apis mellifera). Hives, or urticaria, amikacin prescription is a common skin condition characterized by itchy and raised purchase zofran without prescription welts on the skin. ACCESSIBLE DRUG LABELS AND CONTAINERSSome pharmacies cialis online sale offer labels with large print, braille, or a code you scan.

Today’s news brings a nice juxtaposition.

A new law in South Korea would require those who run web sites to get and retain identifying information about the people who post on their sites. Google, which has been criticized in the past for complying with the demands of authoritarian regimes for information about its users, took the extreme step of disallowing all YouTube uploads and comments in Korea. Bravo — this will cost Google some market share, and may put pressure on the government. (Or perhaps not. YouTube is not the leading video site in Korea.) The government feels dissed and is saying as much to Google.

But today also reminds us that sometimes people using the Internet really are criminals and we are glad they are leaving electronic fingerprints behind. A series of assaults on women around Boston was solved very quickly because the alleged perpetrator was incautious enough to send an email from his home to one of his victims. Detectives obtained his IP address from the ISP and started to surveil his house. Security videos at the several crime scenes showed him tapping on his Blackberry; that was another good source of electronic forensics. (How many people could have used the same Blackberry from the three locations at the same times as the video camera showed this gentleman keeping busy?)

The two stories are not incompatible. Such records could be kept for a few weeks for police purposes and then discarded so they won’t be used for mischievous purposes later. Societies lose something by keeping data, and also lose something by deleting it. It’s just a question of making the right tradeoffs.

Comments are closed.