Several days ago, in the New York Times Magazine, George Washington University law professor Jeff Rosen discussed the issue of online data permanence and what it means for individual privacy. The challenge, he said, is “how best to live our lives in a world where the Internet records everything and forgets nothing — where every online photo, status update, Twitter post and blog entry by and about us can be stored forever.”

Rosen asked the public to submit questions about Internet privacy to Michael Fertik, founder of ReputationDefender, and Paul Ohm, a law professor at the University of Colorado. The answers are given in a two-part series: Part I and Part II. Here’s a sampling of the questions and answers:

Q. How secure are privacy settings on Facebook? For instance, if my information is blocked to all who are not friends, is it possible for those whom I am not friends with to get at that information? — Chrissy

Mr. Fertik: It is important to remember that none of your settings control what information other people post about you. If a friend posts a picture of you using drugs or exercising poor judgment, then that photo will be distributed as far as your friend’s privacy settings allow. If your friend has her privacy set to “friends of friends,” then photos could be visible to hundreds of thousands of people. And, if your friend has her privacy set to “everybody,” then the whole world can see it. The same goes for status updates, videos, applications and more. Read more »

At the New York Times Magazine, George Washington University law professor Jeff Rosen discusses the issue of online data permanence and what it means for individual privacy. He focuses on the “challenge that, in big and small ways, is confronting millions of people around the globe: how best to live our lives in a world where the Internet records everything and forgets nothing — where every online photo, status update, Twitter post and blog entry by and about us can be stored forever.”

According to a recent survey by Microsoft, 75 percent of U.S. recruiters and human-resource professionals report that their companies require them to do online research about candidates, and many use a range of sites when scrutinizing applicants — including search engines, social-networking sites, photo- and video-sharing sites, personal Web sites and blogs, Twitter and online-gaming sites. Seventy percent of U.S. recruiters report that they have rejected candidates because of information found online, like photos and discussion-board conversations and membership in controversial groups.

Technological advances, of course, have often presented new threats to privacy. In 1890, in perhaps the most famous article on privacy ever written, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis complained that because of new technology — like the Kodak camera and the tabloid press — “gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious but has become a trade.” Read more »

The Associated Press reports that a court in Wisconsin has ruled on a case concerning (pdf) the privacy of employee e-mails:

Wisconsin government employees can safely send personal e-mail messages on their work computers without worrying that they will have to make them public, under a ruling Friday by the state Supreme Court.

The court ruled that just because a public employee uses a work computer to send an e-mail, it doesn’t automatically make that message subject to the state open records law. The 5-2 decision overturns a lower court’s ruling that ordered five Wisconsin Rapids School District teachers to turn over private messages. [...]

No state has ruled that private e-mails should be subject to open records disclosure, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said in her majority ruling. Read more »

Privacy Lives joins 16 groups — including the ACLU, Center for Digital Democracy and Public Citizen — in sending a letter (pdf) to Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz asking the agency “to build on its recent privacy roundtables to draft a comprehensive plan that both details the deficiencies in Americans’ privacy rights, and proposes comprehensive statutory and regulatory solutions to those problems.”

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission announced it would hold public roundtables to “explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data.” The object of the roundtables “is to determine how best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of the information and technological innovation.” At the first roundtable in December, I spoke on a panel about online targeted behavioral advertising. The final roundtable was in March.

In the letter to the FTC, the groups said that, “By dint of its expertise and through the input collected from these events, the Commission is now well positioned to issue a wide ranging report – one that addresses the complex and interconnected problems of data collection, offline and online. We urge the Commission to seize this opportunity.” The Commission should take the following steps, the groups said: Read more »

From the Web site on “The Future of Speech on the Borderless Internet”:

A panel of leading cyberlawyers will discuss trans-national regulation and litigation of defamation, hate speech, indecency and political dissent.

Confirmed Speakers:

Danielle Citron, University of Maryland School of Law
Steve Sheinberg, Associate Director of Legal Affairs, Anti-Defamation League
Christopher Wolf, Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP
Chuck Cosson, Senior Policy Counsel, Microsoft
Mark MacCarthy, Communications, Culture & Technology department, Georgetown University
Adam Thierer, President, The Progress & Freedom Foundation (moderator)

Space is limited, so an RSVP is required to attend.

Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at noon ET
Location: Hogan Lovells; 555 13th Street NW; Washington, DC 20004
For more information: http://www.pff.org/events/Future_of_Speech/

Computerworld reports on a quick retreat by a gaming company from a proposal to require users of its forums to post under their true identities, or “Real ID.” The company’s first mistake seems to be picking for its user ID program the same name as a controversial national identification program developed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Gaming giant Activision Blizzard Inc. today said it has abandoned plans to force commenters to use real names when posting on its World of Warcraft and StarCraft forums after loud protests from its users and others.

In a message posted on the company’s Web site shortly before 1 p.m. EDT today, Activision Blizzard CEO Mike Morheieme said the company changed the plan announced earlier after receiving a raft of feedback, much of it criticizing the move, from users posting to the company’s forums. Read more »