What online privacy stuff should I actually care about??

Social media

Thorin Klosowski Lifehacker

11 hours ago

Courtesy of LifeHacker

Question: Look, I'm not really the tinfoil hat type, but everyone keeps telling me I should care a little bit about my privacy. So I ask you: what privacy-related stuff actually affects me day to day, and what should I actually be paying attention to?

Answer: Everyone has a different opinion on this, but for the bulk of us, privacy matters in a few key ways. Let's start first by talking about why people care about privacy to begin with, and what it really means in the online world.

Why we care about privacy
It seems like every week we hear about some type of invasion of privacy. Whether it's Facebook tracking us or the NSA, someone is watching what we're doing online at all the time. So, what's the point in caring anymore? It's about control.

Online privacy is about the ability to control the social information you release. It means that you are aware of what information is public about you, and you can alter that information to suit your needs. Privacy isn't about keeping things away from the public eye, it's about choosing what the public sees. This is why we hear a lot about Facebook's privacy settings, but not Twitter's. On Twitter, everything is clearly public (unless your account is private), whereas on Facebook privacy is a bit more obtuse.

That said, privacy concerns are raised when the data collected by these social networks is used for ads. This happens both online and off. Your data is worth a lot of money, and the fact they're collecting it without you really knowing about it makes a lot of people upset. Companies make money from what you do online. If you don't know that's happening it's pretty easy to see how it's considered an invasion of privacy.

Beyond that, online privacy is a much bigger issue than keeping minor details on Facebook a secret. Your Facebook profile might include private information about your health, legal issues, finances, sexuality, religion, and so much more. Even if you have your own privacy locked down, others in your social network may not, and that means information you think is private gets leaked elsewhere.

The fact is, we leave a heck of a digital trail everywhere we go and that trail can be put together to form a pretty good image of you. We've talked a lot about why you should care about your privacy before, and a reason to defend privacy isn't just because you have something to hide, it's because you probably just don't know you want it hidden yet.

The privacy settings that affect you day to day

Courtesy of LifeHacker

All that said, we understand not everyone cares about their privacy on such a large scale. And, while we disagree, it's true that certain things matter much more on a day to day basis.

Traditional wisdom says that if you don't want information public, then you shouldn't put it online. That's certainly true, but there's a lot of private information you have out there that you might not even realize is public. For most of us, this means what people see on social networks and our personal identifiable information that really matters?no tinfoil hat required.

Your Social Updates, Photos, and Other Personal StuffIt might sound obvious, but the main concern for most people is getting their digital persona under wraps. It's incredibly easy to dig up information on people, especially whenyou're doing a ton of stupid things and just leaving it out all out there.

For your own sake, keeping a clean online presence is essential for job hunting. Understanding the way privacy settings work it the first step to ensuring you're not accidentally sharing that photo of you drunk at the bar.

Privacy on social networks isn't important just for your own sake though. It's also about your friends, family, and children. Everyone is comfortable with different levels of privacy, so if you're sharing details, photos, or locations of friends, that can be pretty upsetting for some people. That's why Facebook has privacy settings that control how you're tagged in photos and locations. Again, this boils down to what privacy really means: the ability to control what's shared and who it's shared with.

Credit cards, addresses, and other personally identifiable information
It might seem obvious, but the other main privacy concern everyone can identify with is sensitive information like credit cards, credit reports, addresses, health information and other similarly personal stuff.

The fact is, we release a lot of this information online, and it's incredibly easy to dig up off your hard drive, from retailers, or after a data breach. Part of the issue here is security, but it's also about privacy.

We've talked about ways to keep this stuff private before, but in a lot of cases it's out of your hands. The best you can do is use incognito mode in your browser, and protect your online accounts as best you can so people don't sneak in to grab your information. Security and privacy are two different things, but they're so closely connected you need to pay attention to both. All this stuff is connected, and the information that identifies who you are can be combined together pretty easily.

We'd argue that these are just the most obvious, basic privacy settings you should be worried about, and there's actually a lot more out there. But this is the stuff everyone should start with, no matter who they are. After that, if you care about digging deeper,you can.

In the end, it's a pretty ruthless fight to keep your information private and continue to use the internet. We've shown you how you can protect yourself to a point (the NSA can certainly still see exactly what you're doing), how to browse the Web privately, or just give up and delete yourself from the internet forever. Once you're offline, The New York Times has a guide for keeping it that way if you're interested. If you're going to continue using the internet with the expectation of privacy, you'll be sorely disappointed, but at the very least you can lock down the data that really matters to you.

More from LifeHacker

Source: http://feeds.nbcnews.com/c/35002/f/653377/s/2dad7892/l/0L0Snbcnews0N0Ctechnology0Cwhat0Eonline0Eprivacy0Estuff0Eshould0Ei0Eactually0Ecare0Eabout0E6C10A4240A0A2/story01.htm

chomp national enquirer kate gosselin helicopter crash matt jones whitney houston in casket photo resolute

How would you change LG's Optimus Vu?

LG's Optimus Vu is a 5-inch smartphone with a stylus that was designed to go toe-to-toe with the Galaxy Note and win. Unfortunately, it was unfriendly in your hand, had a miserable stylus and, worst of all, ran Gingerbread on dated hardware. When we reviewed it, we gave it very short shrift indeed, but what about the few of you who disregarded our advice and bought one anyway? Have the last six months been a pleasure, or would you steer clear of this hardware? Let us know in the comments below.

Filed under: Cellphones, LG

Comments

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/12/hwyc-lg-optimus-vu/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget

katy perry part of me video photoshop cs6 beta cate blanchett nfl news tebow jets romney etch a sketch jeb bush

Chris Kluwe: When They Come for You

"Why do you speak out in support of the gay community?"

I've been asked this question multiple times, at multiple events, and every time I give the same answer: "Because it's the right thing to do. Treat others the way you?d like to be treated."

A simple lesson, one we all learn in kindergarten, yet one that so many people seem to forget as they go through life; as they become more preoccupied with greed, narcissism, hate, and selfishness.

Such an easy equation, and yet so difficult for those lacking empathy to solve, unable to put themselves in another person?s shoes, failing to comprehend the complete dickishness of their actions (actions they would not want perpetrated upon themselves), convinced of their own smug superiority as they try to control someone else?s life.

Why do I speak out in support of the gay community?

Because the words, "We should round them all up and send them to an island to die," are absolutely abhorrent to any rational-minded person and should never be uttered by one member of the human race about another.

Why do I speak out in support of the gay community?

Because the actions of bullying, intolerance, and bigotry, actions that have driven (and will continue to drive) young children and adults to suicide, are actions any creature with an ounce of empathy within their soul ought condemn as the twisted depravity they truly are.

Why do I speak out in support of the gay community?

Because I wish to live in freedom, and every time I contemplate that freedom, I am reminded of a poem by Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

I speak for freedom, even though it is a freedom I currently have. I speak for equality, even though I am currently equal. I speak for justice, even though it is a justice I currently do not need. I speak for gay rights and the rights of every person, no matter their religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual predisposition, or social or economic status, to live free of the chains of oppression and hate, the barbs of ignorance and small minded fear, because that is the life I want to live - a life where I can make my own choices. A life where I can be who I am, not what someone else decides I should be.

TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WANT TO BE TREATED. If we do not make this the cornerstone of our society, if we do not understand that infringing on the freedom of consenting adults to live their lives (in whatever fashion that happens to be) is infringing on the freedom of us all, then we will eventually join other society, culture, and civilization that has ever existed, on the trash heap of history marked "Failure" -- brought there by conflicts those civilizations bred into being, conflicts between those lacking empathy and those desirous of freedom.

Why do I speak out in support of gay rights, of all rights to equality?

Because if I don?t, then who will be left to speak for me?

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post as part of our continuing commitment to recognize fearlessness. To share your story of Becoming Fearless -- either your own or that of someone you know -- send a post (500-850 words), with your headshot and brief bio, to fearless@huffingtonpost.com.

?

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kluwe/when-they-come-for-you_b_3177689.html

st. joseph puerto rico primary manning peyton florida state meghan mccain wilson chandler

Sleeveless

Mika Brzezinski attends the opening of the Milly Madison Avenue boutique in May 2011.

Photo by Thomas Concordia/Getty Images

The female newscaster of today does sexy in a very specific way. It is sleeveless sexy, an age-defying, loose-skin-defying means of telling the world that she worked out this morning and every morning, long before she went to hair and makeup and started broadcasting the nation?s news, long before viewers even considered waking up.

The sleeveless sheath dress, now ubiquitous on cable and local news, and especially beloved by morning news programs, is as much a uniform for TV newswomen as androgyny was in the mid-?90s, when boxy blazers and short hair reigned. Only seven years ago, when Katie Couric took over the CBS Evening News, critics worried whether she might be scandalizing the nation by showing too much leg. Now, legs are the least of it. They?ve been joined by bare arms and dresses so form-fitting that Couric has said many of her colleagues look like they?re going ?clubbing.? The seriousness of the news (OK, seriousness sometimes) has been completely decoupled from the seriousness of the attire of the women presenting it. Only in this precise sartorial moment could Melissa Harris-Perry, the eggheady Tulane professor who has her own show on MSNBC, tackle the angsty politics of black hair in a fitted, halter-neck dress suited to a night out in the meatpacking district.

The sleeveless look is especially jarring this time of year. On Fox News, which has long pushed the sex appeal of its female talent further than other networks, it is typical to see a suited man next to a woman outfitted for lunch on some sunny Roman piazza, as if the colleagues are dressed not only for widely disparate occasions but for different climates as well. On Today, Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb are typically sleeveless, sitting before windows that showcase people bundled up against the Manhattan cold. They also love to get loaded, on-air, well before the lunch hour. They are TV women, after all, observing rules neither of time nor of space.

There?s a reason why the women of TV news have embraced sleevelessness while treading carefully in matters like cleavage (sexy weather reporters aside). Bare arms read as a kind of smart-sexy, a look that women in positions of authority can pull off. Michelle Obama is responsible for this, as are socialites of the Manhattan cocktail circuit, for whom bare arms long ago became a currency of wealth and fitness. MSNBC?s Mika Brzezinski and Chris Jansing are fans of the look, as is CBS?s Gayle King, and CNN?s Brooke Baldwin. Fit arms are about control, a state of poised strength you work at?so much so that supermarket magazines have accused Madonna and Angelina Jolie of pushing their exercise regimes too far, featuring their ropy, veiny biceps right next to close-ups of some other unfortunate?s cellulite. But if cellulite and cleavage can read as sloppy, toned arms are the very opposite; they?re all about intention and control. Which is why newswomen get to show them off. They are appropriate for early risers and Ivy League overachievers?the sexiness of success rather than vulnerability.

And yet. It?s telling that we now expect sexy at all from our TV newswomen. We haven?t always. Beauty, sure. When Diane Sawyer appeared in the ?80s in an off-the-shoulder evening dress on the cover of Vanity Fair, the decision caused such a stir that she was moved to remind a reporter that ?there were no tassels involved.? But if you look back at images of newswomen from the ?80s and ?90s, they were notable for what they didn?t show. When MSNBC launched in 1996, Couric covered everything but her face, wearing a turtleneck under her beige blazer for the virgin broadcast. And women who?ve been on the air for decades tend not to go bare, either because they think it inappropriate to do so at their age or because they were schooled at a time when TV reporters didn?t do such things. In either case, clothing confers dignity. You can?t imagine Christiane Amanpour leveraging her erotic capital on the air.

It does, after all, matter when female voices of authority disrobe. Baring one?s skin, whether it?s d?colletage or arms, remains an indicator of seriousness?are you going to look at me, or are you going to listen to what I?m saying? Because, as the Washington Post pointed out last year in a story about the blazer disappearing from newswomen?s wardrobes, male viewers appear unable to do both. A 2010 study found that the sexier the female anchor, the less men retain of what she says. They literally see instead of hear her. Rachel Maddow has said this is why she maintains a ?conveyor belt of gray blazers,? in order to look the same for every broadcast.

?Don?t focus on what I?m wearing,? Maddow says. ?Focus on what?s coming out of my face.?

The more you think about sleevelessness, the more it reads as a fault line in a stressed and fragmented news industry. TV reporters have always straddled the line between news and entertainment?the path from model or actress or pageant queen (Sawyer was one) to TV reporter is a well-trodden one. But for shows desperate not to lose eyeballs, skin becomes a competitive edge. Thus, the form-fitting sleeveless sheath has become a kind of uniform of Fox News women, favored by Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Martha MacCallum, Michelle Malkin, and others. And thus, when Kelly, a high-profile Fox News anchor, was asked by GQ in 2010 what she thought of the network?s shots of her behind a glass table, showing off her legs, Kelly replied casually, ?Well, it?s a visual business. People want to see the anchor.? Her logic seemed to echo the wisdom of chairman Roger Ailes, who, as Liza Mundy has written, presides over a network that pushes a heavily made-up look sometimes dubbed ?Fox glam.? Quoting journalist Gabriel Sherman, Mundy suggested that Ailes, a one-time Broadway producer, is especially attuned to the entertainment aspect of television news. ?The colors are brighter, the camera angles faster,? Sherman told her. ?Everything pops on the screen more, every?thing is eye candy.?

I should mention that, for that same GQ story, Kelly posed wearing only a black slip and 4-inch red Louboutins, her bosom erupting from her bra. (Headline: ?She Reports, We Decided She?s Hot.?) No tassels involved, but just barely.

Sleevelessness has become so commonplace, you barely notice it anymore. It?s been adopted even by newswomen who are acutely aware of the symbolism of their clothing, as well as the collapsing distinction between news and entertainment. As co-host of MSNBC?s Morning Joe, Brzezinski has on several occasions struck a blow against the trivialization of the news, most famously refusing to read a news item about Paris Hilton by shredding the script on air. She?s also told the Post how, during her first years on Morning Joe, network execs dressed her in clothing that was ?short, skimpy, tight,? and she had to rebel and find her own look. It is clean, chic, and often sleeveless, generally more country club than nightclub.

Still, just a few months ago, Brzezinski posed for a Vanity Fair image that threw her self-awareness into doubt. In the photo, naughtily reminiscent of Michelle Pfeiffer?s piano-crawling scene from The Fabulous Baker Boys, the journalist wears a black sheath dress and poses provocatively on top of a table with one bare leg extended in the air. She gazes adoringly at Scarborough, who sits in a chair, fully suited, grinning at the camera. The message of her arms, not to mention those legs, is this: First and foremost, I am here to entertain you. Would you like me to sing or to dance?

Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=ab60d43b586b6c8a7a1618e51b0edafd

sean young juan pablo montoya free pancakes at ihop martina navratilova high school shooting ohio school shooting sean young arrested

Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley: All Our Numbers Are Up 10-30% Each Month

Today at Disrupt NY 2013, Foursquare founder and CEO Dennis Crowley denied rumors that growth was stagnant for Foursquare. “I think there?s a little bit of perception that we?re not growing,”?Crowley said.?”This is false.” In reality, March 2013 was the best month to date. When it comes to growth numbers, Crowley started by saying that “[they] don?t talk about growth numbers so much.” But Foursquare tracks the number of active users, monthly sign-ups, check-ins, web visitors, etc. “All of these numbers are up 10-30 percent,” Crowley said. Yet, Crowley was very candid about the situation the company is in right now. “We?re not the shiny new thing anymore,” he said. The company is currently trying to become the main location tech company and turn into a recommendation app for restaurants, bars, etc. “A lot of people understand what we?re trying to do, being the location layer on the Internet, but there are a lot of people that don?t,” Crowley said. “People are still skeptical,” he continued. “We are like that company that quietly pushes out big enhancements,” Crowley said. The company just wants to focus on improving the product and generating revenue, even if Foursquare receives negative thoughts from time to time. A good part of Crowley’s fireside chat was about busting rumors and stating that Foursquare is a focused company that is on a good path: “We’ve set ourselves up with nice ambitious targets, and we’re set to hit our goals.”

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/kBQacS84dCg/

PS4 Google Glass Cecil Hotel Cressida Bonas Kenny Clutch Edward Gorey amber rose

Facebook CEO reaped $2.3B gain on stock options

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ? Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reaped a gain of nearly $2.3 billion last year when he exercised 60 million stock options just before the online social networking leader's initial public offering.

The windfall detailed in regulatory documents filed Friday saddled Zuckerberg, 28, with a massive tax bill. He raised the money to pay it by selling 30.2 million Facebook Inc. shares for $38 apiece, or $1.1 billion, in the IPO.

Facebook's stock hasn't closed above $38 since the IPO was completed last May. The shares gained 71 cents Friday to close at $26.85.

The 29 percent decline from Facebook's IPO price has cost Zuckerberg nearly $7 billion on paper, based on the 609.5 million shares of company stock that he owned as of March 31, according to the regulatory filing. His current stake is still worth $16.4 billion.

Zuckerberg, who started Facebook in his Harvard University dorm room in 2004, has indicated he has no immediate plans to sell more stock.

The exercise of Zuckerberg's stock options and his subsequent sale of shares in the IPO had been previously disclosed. The proxy statement filed to announce Facebook's June 11 shareholder meeting is the first time that the magnitude of Zuckerberg's stock option gain had been quantified.

The proxy also revealed that Zuckerberg's pay package last year rose 16 percent because of increased personal usage of jets chartered by the company as part of his security program.

Zuckerberg's compensation last year totaled nearly $2 million, up from $1.7 million last year. Of those amounts, $1.2 million covered the costs of Zuckerberg's personal air travel last year, up from $692,679 in 2011.

If not for the spike in travel costs, Zuckerberg's pay would have declined by 17 percent. His salary and bonus totaled $769,306 last year versus $928,833 in 2011.

Zuckerberg will take a big pay cut this year. His annual salary has been reduced to $1 and he will no longer receive a bonus, according to Facebook's filing. That puts Zuckerberg's current cash compensation on the same level as Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page, whose stake in his company is worth about $20 billion.

The Associated Press formula for determining an executive's total compensation calculates salary, bonuses, perquisites, above-market interest that the company pays on deferred compensation and the estimated value of stock and stock options awarded during the year. The AP formula does not count changes in the present value of pension benefits or stock option gains such as those recognized by Zuckerberg did last year.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2013-04-26-Facebook-Executive%20Compensation/id-23de47cd6de5470db02b6a33e635a8e2

ny times Boston Marathon Results pangolin Ball Bearings Macklemore irs forms kevin hart

First-quarter growth quickens, but misses forecasts

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Economic growth regained speed in the first quarter, but not as much as expected, which could heighten fears the already weakening economy could struggle to handle deep government spending cuts and higher taxes.

Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace.

Part of the acceleration in activity reflected farmers' filling up silos after a drought last summer decimated crop output. Removing inventories, the growth rate was a tepid 1.5 percent.

Given the smaller-than-expected increase and signs the economy has weakened in recent weeks, the GDP data will probably weigh on U.S. stocks. It could also give ammunition for the Federal Reserve to maintain its monetary stimulus.

The U.S. central bank, which meets next week, is widely expected to keep purchasing bonds at a pace of $85 billion a month.

Data ranging from employment to retail sales and manufacturing weakened substantially in March after robust gains in the first two months of the year. There are indications the weakness persisted into April.

BROAD-BASED GAINS

The GDP showed contributions to growth from all areas of the economy, with the exception of government, trade and investment by businesses in offices and other commercial buildings.

Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased at 3.2 percent pace - the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2010. It grew at a 1.8 percent rate in the fourth quarter of last year.

However, households cut back on saving to fund their purchases after incomes dropped at a 5.3 percent rate in the first quarter - a bad sign for future spending growth. The drop in income was the largest since the third quarter of 2009.

The saving rate - the percentage of disposable income households are socking away - fell to 2.6 percent, the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2007, from 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Much of the gains in first-quarter spending came from automobile purchases and outlays for utilities, which were boosted by unusually cold temperatures. Consumers managed to step up their spending despite the return of a 2 percent payroll tax and higher gasoline prices.

Despite the spike in gasoline prices, inflation pressures were benign in the first three months of the year.

An inflation gauge in the government's GDP report rose at a 0.9 percent rate, the smallest increase since the second quarter of 2012. The personal consumption expenditure index had increased at a 1.6 percent pace the fourth quarter.

A core measure that strips out food and energy costs rose at a 1.2 percent rate, still well below the Fed's 2 percent target. Core PCE had increased at a 1.0 percent rate in the fourth quarter.

The lack of inflation should come as welcome relief for American households, but it could cause some nervousness at the U.S. central bank, which may see it as a symptom of the economy's weakness.

Another big contributor to growth in the fourth quarter was inventory accumulation, which added a full percentage point to GDP growth after chopping off 1.5 points from output in the final three months of last year.

Business spending on equipment and software slowed sharply, growing at an only 3.0 percent rate after a brisk 11.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter.

Economists caution that it is too early to blame the cooling in business investment and other more recent signs of economic softness on the $85 billion in mandatory government spending cuts, known as the sequester, that began on March 1.

Homebuilding marked an eighth straight quarter of growth, though the pace moderated from the fourth quarter. Housing added to growth last year for the first time since 2005 and its recovery should help ensure the economy does not contract.

While export growth rebounded, it was outpaced by imports, resulting in a trade deficit that cut off half a percentage point from output.

(Editing by Andrea Ricci)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/first-quarter-gdp-seen-3-percent-momentum-ebbs-051102013--sector.html

soul train nevada caucus ufc 143 what time does the super bowl start super bowl 2012 josephine baker ben gazzara