Rodger A. Payne's Blog: Most influential IR scholars
http://rpayne.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Latin American Enthusiast
This is the blog of a career diplomat from India, who loves Latin America. Its a really cool blog.
http://latinamericanaffairs.blogspot.com
http://latinamericanaffairs.blogspot.com
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Life In A Fishbowl!!!!!!!!!!!
Now here is an interesting post that has caught my eye. This reminds me of the potential for suprevison by the state too as envisaged by George Orwell in his classic 1984. I have posted the link where the story is avaiable and also the complete text, in case the page is removed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/08/scitech/pcanswer/main765107.shtml
August 8, 2005
(CBS) Last month Elinor Mills, columnist for CNET’s News.com “googled” Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Not surprisingly, Ms. Mills quickly found Mr. Schmidt’s net worth, how much money he made from selling Google stock, the town he lives in and that he once hosted a fund raising dinner for a presidential candidate.
She disclosed this information in her July 14 column and last week News.com reported that “Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.”
The implication being that Google is punishing CNET for its naughty reporting behavior. Ms. Mills disclosed the information to make a point. Google has links to an enormous amount of information about a great many people.
Google has declined to comment on the story.
I can’t figure out what all the fuss is about. There wasn’t anything in this article that wasn’t already available to anyone else who took the time to look. As CEO of a public company, much of Mr. Schmidt’s financial information, by law, must be disclosed to the public. The same is true of large political contributions. Where he lives is also public information. What’s more, what people pay for their houses is usually available form public sources.
The article also went on to discuss other information that Google knows about many of its users. Mills was absolutely correct in pointing out that Google stores incoming and outgoing email from everyone that uses its Gmail e-mail service, but that’s obvious.
The whole idea of Gmail is to store your mail on Google’s service as a convenience to users. That’s what I like about it. Google plans to make money on the service by displaying ads based on the content of the mail but that, too, is made clear to users.
Google also offers an optional personalized search service that keeps track of users’ searches and offers other services that store information about its users.
But there’s nothing unique about a company storing personal information. The same is true with Yahoo, Microsoft Network or any other company that offers personalized Web-based services.
I store my investment portfolio on Investor.com which is part of MSN Money. Does that mean that Bill Gates can find out how much money I have and where I park it? Absolutely. Will he? I don’t think so. It would bore him to tears. Besides, Microsoft, along with Google, Yahoo and other responsible companies, has a privacy policy that limits what they can do with that information.
On it’s privacy statement at its Gmail site, Google acknowledges that it maintains copies of your messages but says that “Google employees do not access the content of any mailboxes unless you specifically request them to do so … or if required by law, to maintain our system, or to protect Google or the public.”
Like other responsible companies, it also states that it will “never rent, sell or share information that personally identifies you for marketing purposes without your express permission.”
Before anyone gets too upset about the information stored by Google and other Web sites, consider what else is known about you.
Your bank knows about every check you write, your credit card companies have a record of all your charges, phone companies know who you’re talking to. If you use one of those club cards, your grocery store knows what you’re buying. The same might be true if you pay by ATM or credit card. Your health care provider and health insurance company know just about everything about your state-of-health.
In other words, the vast majority of us live lives that are very well documented.
The whole system is based on trust. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a credit card, you must voluntarily allow the issuing company that information on the assurances that they won’t misuse it.
You could pay for everything with cash, get a pre-paid cell phone account and only use the Internet from public terminals where you don’t have to identify yourself.
But there is almost no way to be completely anonymous. If you drive a car, your license number is on display for anyone to jot down and find out who you are. It’s illegal to get on a plane without showing ID and forget about renting a car or spending the night at a hotel or motel.
Unfortunately, there are times when the trust is violated such as the well publicized recent cases where database and credit card processing companies have accidentally disclosed personal information that they warehouse about the public. The sad part about that is there is nothing any of us can do to protect ourselves. It’s not as if you and I necessarily willingly disclosed that information to the companies that store it. They get it – legally – from companies we do business with.
There are also plenty of Web sites which, for a fee, will disclose a great deal of publicly available information about people. My wife was trying to re-connect with a college roommate. Googling her didn’t help because she has an extremely common name. All we knew was the town she grew up in.
A friend of mine who is a former executive of one of those data warehousing companies offered to help. Armed with only her name and the town she grew up in, it took him less than a minute to come up with a complete report on her including her married name, the names and addresses of her neighbors, her employment history, information about her family and even the sad news that her dad recently died. And this was only the publicly available data. There is plenty more for law enforcement, credit companies and anyone who can masquerade as someone with a legitimate reason to find peer into the depth of what these companies know about us.
Like it or not, we all live in a fish bowl.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/08/scitech/pcanswer/main765107.shtml
August 8, 2005
(CBS) Last month Elinor Mills, columnist for CNET’s News.com “googled” Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Not surprisingly, Ms. Mills quickly found Mr. Schmidt’s net worth, how much money he made from selling Google stock, the town he lives in and that he once hosted a fund raising dinner for a presidential candidate.
She disclosed this information in her July 14 column and last week News.com reported that “Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.”
The implication being that Google is punishing CNET for its naughty reporting behavior. Ms. Mills disclosed the information to make a point. Google has links to an enormous amount of information about a great many people.
Google has declined to comment on the story.
I can’t figure out what all the fuss is about. There wasn’t anything in this article that wasn’t already available to anyone else who took the time to look. As CEO of a public company, much of Mr. Schmidt’s financial information, by law, must be disclosed to the public. The same is true of large political contributions. Where he lives is also public information. What’s more, what people pay for their houses is usually available form public sources.
The article also went on to discuss other information that Google knows about many of its users. Mills was absolutely correct in pointing out that Google stores incoming and outgoing email from everyone that uses its Gmail e-mail service, but that’s obvious.
The whole idea of Gmail is to store your mail on Google’s service as a convenience to users. That’s what I like about it. Google plans to make money on the service by displaying ads based on the content of the mail but that, too, is made clear to users.
Google also offers an optional personalized search service that keeps track of users’ searches and offers other services that store information about its users.
But there’s nothing unique about a company storing personal information. The same is true with Yahoo, Microsoft Network or any other company that offers personalized Web-based services.
I store my investment portfolio on Investor.com which is part of MSN Money. Does that mean that Bill Gates can find out how much money I have and where I park it? Absolutely. Will he? I don’t think so. It would bore him to tears. Besides, Microsoft, along with Google, Yahoo and other responsible companies, has a privacy policy that limits what they can do with that information.
On it’s privacy statement at its Gmail site, Google acknowledges that it maintains copies of your messages but says that “Google employees do not access the content of any mailboxes unless you specifically request them to do so … or if required by law, to maintain our system, or to protect Google or the public.”
Like other responsible companies, it also states that it will “never rent, sell or share information that personally identifies you for marketing purposes without your express permission.”
Before anyone gets too upset about the information stored by Google and other Web sites, consider what else is known about you.
Your bank knows about every check you write, your credit card companies have a record of all your charges, phone companies know who you’re talking to. If you use one of those club cards, your grocery store knows what you’re buying. The same might be true if you pay by ATM or credit card. Your health care provider and health insurance company know just about everything about your state-of-health.
In other words, the vast majority of us live lives that are very well documented.
The whole system is based on trust. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a credit card, you must voluntarily allow the issuing company that information on the assurances that they won’t misuse it.
You could pay for everything with cash, get a pre-paid cell phone account and only use the Internet from public terminals where you don’t have to identify yourself.
But there is almost no way to be completely anonymous. If you drive a car, your license number is on display for anyone to jot down and find out who you are. It’s illegal to get on a plane without showing ID and forget about renting a car or spending the night at a hotel or motel.
Unfortunately, there are times when the trust is violated such as the well publicized recent cases where database and credit card processing companies have accidentally disclosed personal information that they warehouse about the public. The sad part about that is there is nothing any of us can do to protect ourselves. It’s not as if you and I necessarily willingly disclosed that information to the companies that store it. They get it – legally – from companies we do business with.
There are also plenty of Web sites which, for a fee, will disclose a great deal of publicly available information about people. My wife was trying to re-connect with a college roommate. Googling her didn’t help because she has an extremely common name. All we knew was the town she grew up in.
A friend of mine who is a former executive of one of those data warehousing companies offered to help. Armed with only her name and the town she grew up in, it took him less than a minute to come up with a complete report on her including her married name, the names and addresses of her neighbors, her employment history, information about her family and even the sad news that her dad recently died. And this was only the publicly available data. There is plenty more for law enforcement, credit companies and anyone who can masquerade as someone with a legitimate reason to find peer into the depth of what these companies know about us.
Like it or not, we all live in a fish bowl.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
'Security Politics' of Cricket
First of all I would like to express my condolences to the victims of the Blasts that shook London on July 7th, 2005.
But the thing that struck me when I was following the Cricket Series between England and Australia, was the fact that the series would go ahead with the matches as scheduled in London, with extra security measures. I am surprised by the muted reaction from the Australia team which has earlier expressed "security concerns" as the reason for not playing in Karachi and Mumbai, despite the assurances from the security agencies of Pakistan and India.
As it can be seen from the situation in London, there can never be a 'foolproof security system' in place and there is always the chance of such incidents occuring. So the earlier reaction by the Australian cricket team to not play in Pakistan and India seems to be overridden by other concerns rather than just 'security concerns' of the team. This needs to be condemned in the least as they had played into the hands of the miscreants by not playing in the sub-continent and increased the fear of the people in the region.
But the thing that struck me when I was following the Cricket Series between England and Australia, was the fact that the series would go ahead with the matches as scheduled in London, with extra security measures. I am surprised by the muted reaction from the Australia team which has earlier expressed "security concerns" as the reason for not playing in Karachi and Mumbai, despite the assurances from the security agencies of Pakistan and India.
As it can be seen from the situation in London, there can never be a 'foolproof security system' in place and there is always the chance of such incidents occuring. So the earlier reaction by the Australian cricket team to not play in Pakistan and India seems to be overridden by other concerns rather than just 'security concerns' of the team. This needs to be condemned in the least as they had played into the hands of the miscreants by not playing in the sub-continent and increased the fear of the people in the region.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Thoughts on Democratic Peace Theroy
The link below has an interesting post from the DuckofMinerva blog concerning India-Pakistan relationship in light of the proposed sale of F-16 fighters to these countries. I think that these assumptions seem to be slightly way off the mark considering the 'historical roots' of the conflict between these two countries.
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2005/06/would-you-rather-have-big-macor-f-16.html
The fact that the confrontation between the two countries has been averted during the recent buildup of armed forces by India, can be explained in light of the 'nuclear shadow' hanging over the Indian subcontinet. Thus any assumptions like these sound way off the mark and the refernce to the Democratic Peace Theory, doesn't explain the potential causes of conflict between the two countries as Pakistan can't be considered a 'democracy' by any standards.
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2005/06/would-you-rather-have-big-macor-f-16.html
The fact that the confrontation between the two countries has been averted during the recent buildup of armed forces by India, can be explained in light of the 'nuclear shadow' hanging over the Indian subcontinet. Thus any assumptions like these sound way off the mark and the refernce to the Democratic Peace Theory, doesn't explain the potential causes of conflict between the two countries as Pakistan can't be considered a 'democracy' by any standards.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
International Relations Blogs
This consists of the various interesting blogs that cover International Relations/Politics.
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)