| Media Search: |
17-02-2012 12:34 Hyderabadi creates social networking site 'Wall Post'
Excerpt from:
Hyderabadi creates social networking site 'Wall Post' - Tv9 - Video
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Living in the world of social networking and mobile smartphones means trading away some of your personal information.
But assessing the price of admission to join the super-networked, digital class is not so simple; even experts on the issue admit that they don't have a full picture of the way personal information is collected and used on the Internet. But here are some basic guidelines to keep in mind.
Q. What information do you have to give up to participate in social media?
A. Social networks such as Facebook and Google+ require at a minimum that you provide them with your name, gender and date of birth. Many people provide additional profile information, and the act of using the services - writing comments or uploading photos or "friending" people - creates additional information about you. Most of that information can be kept hidden from the public if you choose, though the companies themselves have access to it.
If you use your Facebook credentials to log-on to other Web sites, or if you use Facebook apps, you might be granting access to parts of your profile that would otherwise be hidden. Quora, for example, a popular online Q&A site, requires that Facebook users provide it access to their photos, their "Likes" and information that their friends share with them. TripAdvisor, by contrast, requires only access to "basic information" including gender and lists of friends.
Social media apps on smartphones, which have access to personal phone call information and physical location, put even more information at play.
On Apple Inc's iPhone, apps must get user permission to access GPS location coordinates, a procedure that will now be applied to address book access as well after companies including Twitter were found to be downloading iPhone address book information. Beyond those two types of data, Apple locks away personal data stored in other applications, such as notepad and calendar apps, according to Michael Sutton, the vice president of security research at email security service ZScaler.
Google Inc's Android smartphone operating system allows third-party apps to tap into a bonanza of personal data, though only if they get permission. In order to download an app from the Android Market, users must click 'OK' on a pop-up list that catalogues the specific types of information that each particular app has access to.
With both mobile and Facebook apps, often the choice is to provide access to a personal information or not use the app at all.
Q. Should I worry about how my information is being used?
A. Personal information is the basic currency of an Internet economy built around marketing and advertising. Hundreds of companies collect personal information about Web users, slice it up, combine it with other information, and then resell it.
Facebook doesn't provide personal information to outside marketers, but other websites, including sites that access Facebook profile data, may have different policies. Last year, a study by Stanford University graduate student found that profile information on an online dating site, including ethnicity, income and drug use frequency, was somehow being transmitted to a third-party data firm.
The data that third-parties collect is used mainly by advertisers, but there are concerns that these profiles could be used by insurance companies or banks to help them make decisions about who to do business with.
Q. Are there any restrictions on what information companies can collect from Internet users or what they can do with it?
A. In the United States, the federal law requires websites that know they are being visited by children under 13 to post a privacy policy, get parental approval before collecting personal information on children, and allow parents to bar the spread of that information or demand its deletion. The site operators are not allowed to require more information from the children than is "reasonably necessary" for participating in its activities.
For those who are 13 or older, the United States has no overarching restrictions. Websites are free to collect personal information including real names and addresses, credit card numbers, Internet addresses, the type of software installed, and even what other websites people have visited. Sites can keep the information indefinitely and share most of what they get with just about anyone.
Websites are not required to have privacy policies. Companies have most often been tripped up by saying things in their privacy policies - such as promising that data is kept secure - and then not living up to them. That can get them in trouble under the federal laws against unfair and deceptive practices.
Sites that accept payment card information have to follow industry standards for encrypting and protecting that data. Medical records and some financial information, such as that compiled by rating agencies, are subject to stricter rules.
European privacy laws are more stringent and the European Union is moving to establish a universal right to have personal data removed from a company's database-informally known as the "right to be forgotten." That approach is fervently opposed by companies dependent on Internet advertising.
Q. Is there likely to be new privacy legislation in the United States?
A. The year 2011 saw a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill as U.S. lawmakers introduced a handful of do-not-track bills with even the Obama White House calling for a "privacy bill of rights."
Leading the charge on do-not-track legislation are the unlikely pair of Reps. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Joseph Barton, a Republican from Texas, who have jointly led a "Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus."
Still, with half a dozen privacy laws meandering through Congress, most observers expect it could take a long time before any are passed-and not before they are significantly watered down in the legislative process.
Video-Is Google tracking you? http://r.reuters.com/tat66s
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic, Gerry Shih and Joseph Menn. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Richard Chang)
Link:
Q+A: The complex interplay of social media and privacy
Networking is a seminal skill for many careers. In the past, networking meant meeting people face to face at chamber of commerce, industry and other social/business events. Technology has changed that and today we network via LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. Those sites are fabulous, but nothing can replace human interaction. Looking a person in the eye, shaking his or her hand and witnessing body language allows you to build rapport and connect in a manner that social networking cannot. Here are some tips to help you succeed at the "old" art of networking.
Understand your goals. Are you networking to make business connections, learn, volunteer or get a new job? Networking functions have different tenors and purposes; therefore, it is important to visit groups before deciding to join. If you attend several events without results, don’t give up on networking, just find groups that fit better.
Have elevator speech. In about 20 to 30 seconds, be able to answer the question "what do you do?" Write it down and practice so you can articulate it clearly. Tell how you do your job, what makes you different from others and what your unique value proposition is. Whether you are competing for business, looking for referrals or seeking a new job, make it easy for people to understand what you do and remember you.
Be consistent. Have a systematic approach to networking. Create a plan and stick to it. Whether you plan to attend one networking event a week or month, consistency is vital. Over time you will become recognizable and deepen your contacts.
Try to help others. Throughout my career I have found that when I help others, it returns to me in spades. Approach networking from the vantage point of being a resource and offering assistance to others. People will remember you for this and be interested in speaking with you again. Put your goals on the back burner and think about the other person.
Master small talk. Before a networking function, brush up on current events. Being conversant in the news of the day, the financial markets, sports or anything related to the group you are meeting with will enable you to engage in necessary idle banter.
Engage others. Don’t be a wallflower. Join others by listening and asking good, open-ended questions. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Gain a good sense of who people are and what is important to them. Being a good listener and understanding what drives others will help you position yourself appropriately.
Business cards. Personally, I am oft-put by people who walk around handing their business cards to everyone. I prefer to request a person’s card. This shows genuine interest and lets me control the next steps.
Follow up. Immediate follow-up demonstrates interest and professionalism. Drop a quick e-mail saying "Nice meeting you at the XYZ function last night. I will follow up with you about our discussion later in the week." Then call to schedule a face-to-face meeting.
Meet over meals. Connecting over breakfast, lunch or coffee is a great way to build on an initial meeting. Generally, a meal takes less than an hour and we eat them anyway. So why not use it for networking. Also, breaking bread deepens a psychological bond.
Refresh contacts. Relationships that are not cultivated grow stale. Stay in touch by sending an e-mail, calling, scheduling a meeting or making sure you see them at the next networking function.
Leverage online networking. Online networking is a great complement to in-person efforts. For example, after meeting someone you can send a LinkedIn invite to connect and learn more. A word of caution: LinkedIn is for business, Facebook is not. Do not send a friend invite on Facebook to someone you just met at a networking function.
Be sincere. All of these tips work if, and only if, you are sincere. Be yourself. You don’t need to be a great salesperson or a great conversationalist to succeed at networking. You just need to behave in a manner that suits your personality, demeanor and goals.
Face-to-face networking is a great way to build business contacts, learn or even find a new job. These tips will help you do just that.
Mark Schnurman may be reached at markschnurman@yahoo.com or on the web at markschnurman.com.
Continue reading here:
Schnurman: 12 tips for successful networking -- in person
Fouchier is attracting so much attention because he has created a new organism. And although it is tiny, if it escaped from his laboratory it would claim far more human lives than an exploding nuclear power plant.
The pathogen is a new mutation of the feared bird flu virus, H5N1. In nature, this virus, which kills one of every two people infected, has not yet been transmitted from humans to humans. So far, a relatively small number of people have caught the virus from poultry, and 336 people have died.
Scientific Wake-Up Call
For years, experts feared that the adaptable virus could soon mutate from being primarily a bird killer to a highly infectious threat to humans. But as the years passed and this did not happen, many hoped that it might not even be possible, and some of the fears subsided.
But now Fouchier's experiments have given the research community a wake-up call. The scientist performed only a few targeted manipulations on the genetic material of the ordinary H5N1 virus and, to make the virus even more dangerous, he repeatedly transmitted it from one laboratory animal to the next.
"In the end, the virus became airborne," the Dutch scientist explains. From then on Fouchier's ferrets, animals that most closely resemble humans when it comes to influenza, transmitted the virus to each other without direct contact, through tiny droplets of saliva and mucus.
Many scientists are particularly impressed by the fact that, at almost the same time, another research team also managed to produce a bird flu virus that could be transmitted via airborne respiratory droplets. To achieve this, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin combined the avian flu virus with the swine flu virus. The newly created superbug is highly infectious, however not particularly dangerous to the ferrets Kawaoka used in his experiments.
Articles Not Published
The scientific community anxiously anticipated learning about the details of the experiments. What exactly had Fouchier and Kawaoka done? How had Fouchier manipulated the bird flu virus? And, most of all, must the medical community now fear that the natural bird flu virus will develop in similar ways? Scientists hoped to find answers to these questions in findings that were to be published in the scientific magazines Nature and Science.
But the articles were not published. Officials from the NSABB had called the magazines' executive editors to prevent their publication. Because of the potential risk that the newly created bird flu viruses could be used as biological weapons, the organization asked the journals not to publish Kawaoka's and Fouchier's results, or at least not in their entirety.
This suddenly puts Fouchier at the center of an explosive controversy over biosecurity and academic freedom. Should scientists be allowed to create artificial viruses and bacteria, even if they are dangerous to human beings? What safety standards should be applied to their work? And should their controversial results be published, or is the risk too great that they will be misused as instructions to make biological weapons?
The debate has caused two opposing worlds to collide. The virologists, on the one side, suspect that the bio-terrorism watchdogs are being paranoid. The terrorism experts, on the other, feel that the scientists are simply naive.
'A Door Has Been Pushed Open'
The NSABB censorship came as a shock to most influenza researchers. "I've never seen anything like this," says Hans-Dieter Klenk, an influenza expert in the German city of Marburg. His colleague Stephan Ludwig, a virologist at the University of Munster in northwest Germany, sees the move as a threat to scientific freedom. "A door has been pushed open here that won't be so easy to close again," he says.
For many of the scientists, the idea that terrorists could misuse their viruses as weapons is simply absurd. "If I wanted to kill a lot of people, I would rent a truck, fill it with gasoline and fertilizer and blow it up," Fouchier says testily. Reinhard Burger, president of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, Germany's federal institution for disease control and prevention, says: "I think the risk of misuse by terrorists is low."
Michael Osterholm, the most prominent member of the NSABB, completely disagrees. "I don't think it's a question of whether terrorists will use infectious pathogens to kill innocent civilians," he says. "It's just a question of when and how they do it."
High-Level Pressure
Osterholm can feel confident that he has support from the highest levels of the U.S. government. Last December, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise appearance at the annual biological weapons convention in Geneva. Such a high-ranking U.S. official had not attended the event in decades.
Clinton spoke of "warning signals," even "evidence" that al-Qaeda was trying to recruit "brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry." "The nature of the problem is changing," she told the delegates. "A crude, but effective, terrorist weapon can be made by using a small sample of any number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment and college-level chemistry and biology."
To buy some time in the face of so much opposition, 39 influenza researchers from around the world began a 60-day moratorium on all research related to controversial viruses at the end of January. "We realize that organizations and governments around the world need time to find the best solutions for opportunities and challenges that stem from the work," the scientists wrote in an open letter published in Nature.
But the scientists are deeply divided over what exactly these solutions should look like. While some would prefer not to make any changes, Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, proposes making research with artificially produced bird flu viruses subject to strict regulation, as is the case with pox viruses.
Past Experiments
But if such regulation is imposed, it will have to apply to more than avian flu viruses. Similarly controversial experiments have also been conducted with other pathogens:
-- In 2001, a mouse pox virus that was 100-percent fatal was accidentally created in an Australian laboratory. The genetic makeup of the killer virus was published.
-- In 2005, scientists at Stanford University calculated that a terrorist attack with botulinum toxin in milk could kill 568,000 people. The Bush administration tried in vain to prevent the paper from being published.
-- Nature recently published instructions on how to create the plague virus.
-- The influenza virus that caused the devastating Spanish Flu in 1918 has been completely recreated.
But security authorities only seem to be getting uneasy now, as they suddenly ask themselves a fundamental question: How great is the risk that such pathogens could escape from the laboratory, and that scientists would trigger precisely the devastating pandemic that they are in fact trying to prevent with their research?
Differing Safety Levels
Most virologists feel that the risks are justifiable. "We have set up a laboratory here that has three separate physical barriers," Fouchier insists. The core of the laboratory consists of wardrobe-sized boxes outfitted with glass windows, each containing four cages of ferrets.
Two pairs of black rubber gloves are poking into the boxes. "Before we take swabs from the animals or inject viruses into the nostrils, we put steel gloves on over the rubber gloves," says Fouchier. For security reasons, he is not even willing to provide the exact location of the laboratory.
The low pressure in the boxes provides additional protection, because it is intended to ensure that even in the event of a leak, no viruses will escape. In addition, everything that leaves the boxes is disinfected with acetic acid in a safety area.
"And if I did infect myself, we have isolation wards in the adjacent hospital," Fouchier explains. "It's practically impossible for one of my team members to accidentally take the virus along into the Rotterdam subway."
Nevertheless, not even Fouchier can deny that pathogens have escaped from highly secure laboratories. The "Russian flu" of 1977 may have been triggered by a lab virus. SARS, a respiratory disease, almost returned when laboratory workers became infected with the coronavirus during their work. A scientist in Chicago even died of SARS in 2009.
Hundreds of new virus laboratories have been established worldwide in recent years, and highly dangerous pathogens are used in a large share of these laboratories. "The risk of a virus being released accidentally is considerable," says critic Ebright.
That, says Ebright, is why future research involving bird flu viruses should only be done in laboratories with highest so-called biosafety level, BSL-4. Currently only the second-highest level, BSL-3, is required. During their experiments, Fouchier and Kawaoka only wore lab coats and breathing masks, not the "spacesuits" that virologists wear when they are working with pathogens like the Ebola virus.
'An Early Warning System'
Fouchier would prefer to take things a step further and send his pathogen to other labs around the world. "We are at the very beginning, and we need as many scientists and their ideas as possible, so that we can understand why this new virus is so contagious," he says.
In the end, whether the experiments with Fouchier's super-flu virus will continue or possibly be stopped altogether will probably not be determined by issues of safety, but by their potential benefits.
The situation is clear to Fouchier. Using his killer virus, he wants to find out which mutations in the genome are responsible for the extreme infection rates. "We'll know where to look in the future," says the virologist, who hopes that his research will allow him to develop an "early warning system for pandemics."
But this is precisely what others see as an illusion, noting that the monitoring of poultry and especially pigs, in which new viruses develop with particular frequency, is still far too incomplete. A colleague who knows Fouchier's work very well says that the experiments are "nothing more than a piece of the puzzle."
Intellpuke: You can read this article by Spiegel journalists Veronika Hackenbroch and Gerald Traufetter in context here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,815782,00.html
This article was translated from the German for Spiegel by Christopher Sultan.
Read more here:
Containing Super-Flus - Controversy Brews Over Scientists' Creation Of Killer Viruses
Originally published February 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM | Page modified February 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM
VANCOUVER, B.C. — Bathing suit? Check.
Suntan lotion? Check.
Nose spray to keep diarrhea from ruining your cruise?
It's not on the check list yet, but scientists are closing in on a nasal vaccine that would protect against norovirus, the virulent bug that is the curse of cruise ships, cheerleading competitions — and any other venue that brings large numbers of people into proximity.
With an estimated 20 million infections a year nationwide, norovirus is the No. 1 cause of the intestinal crud people call stomach flu.
"This virus is very democratic," said Jan Vinje, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "It affects everyone."
If the research goes well, the vaccine could be available within five years, said Charles Arntzen, a molecular biologist at Arizona State University.
"We are going to have a vaccine," he said last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But it's not clear how effective a vaccine would be against a virus that evolves rapidly and comes in more than 30 varieties. And how many people will be willing to get vaccinated for a disease that's generally just a nuisance?
Sign me up, said Ellen Langan, of Ballard. Langan and her 16-year-old daughter, Ana Krafchick, were among more than 200 people who came down with norovirus after a cheerleading competition in Everett this month. Krafchick started throwing up the next evening and became so dehydrated she passed out and landed in the hospital.
Langan is convinced she picked up the infection while caring for her daughter. "I washed and disinfected my hands until they were raw and I still got it," she said.
While cruise ships and community outbreaks get most of the publicity, nearly 60 percent of norovirus cases occur in nursing homes, said the CDC's Vinje. Cruise ships account for 4 percent, and another 4 percent are linked to schools and school events. Children and adults are equally vulnerable.
Most victims recover after a day or two of misery, but more than 70,000 a year are hospitalized. CDC estimates the virus kills 800 people a year, most of them older than 65. The annual economic toll is about $2 billion in medical costs and lost productivity.
Though it seems like the virus came out of nowhere in the past few decades, it's been around for a long time, Vinje said. New tests make it easier to diagnose, so tracking has improved. The bug has also changed over time, with new strains emerging every few years.
Illnesses soar when the new strains are more virulent than the old ones. Cases may be spiking again this winter, Vinje said.
As Langan's experience shows, norovirus spreads quickly and can be harder to kill than the monster in the movie "Alien." Symptoms hit suddenly. Outbreaks often start when an infected person vomits in the corridor of a cruise ship, or, as in the case of the cheer competition, in a bathroom. Tiny particles fly through air and land on surfaces. Even the simple act of flushing the toilet after a bout of diarrhea or vomiting can suspend more droplets in the air.
The bug can also slip into the body via food, water or dirty hands. Once it does, as few as 18 virus particles are enough to do the trick, making norovirus the most infectious microbe known, Vinje said.
While many viruses are too fragile to survive long in the environment, noroviruses are encased in a BB-like shell that allows them to live for days or even months in some settings. One contaminated airplane cabin spread the disease to successive flight crews over several days.
Cruise ships have learned through hard experience that ordinary mopping isn't good enough. They now use bleach to disinfect every surface, including hand rails and poker chips, said Dr. Marcia Goldoft, an epidemiologist at the Washington Department of Health.
The first experimental vaccine worked well in a test on 100 people last year, Arntzen said. About two-thirds of those who got the vaccine were protected from infection with one particular strain of norovirus. But a commercial vaccine will need to cover multiple strains, he said. Preferably, it will also be long-lasting, though the bug mutates so quickly that a norovirus vaccine may have to be reformulated every year like the flu vaccine.
A nasal spray is better than a shot because it more directly targets the respiratory tract and gut where the virus concentrates.
Despite a potentially large market, the technical uncertainties have kept big pharmaceutical companies out of the race so far, Arntzen said. His lab at ASU is one of two in the United States working on the problem. The other is Ligocyte Pharmaceuticals, the biotech company that produced the vaccine tested last year.
Nursing homes and health-care workers would probably be the biggest customers, at least initially. But a vaccine might also find a market among cruise-ship clientele or frequent conference-goers.
"It would be more of an insurance policy than a primary health-care protection," Arntzen said.
In the meantime, since norovirus thumbs its nose at alcohol-based sanitizers, hand-washing remains your best line of personal defense.
But you have to do it right, Goldoft said. That means soap, warm water and vigorous scrubbing for as long as it takes to sing "Happy Birthday" — twice.
A recent study found 83 percent of people say they wash thoroughly, but only 17 percent do.
Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com
See the original post:
Nasal vaccine may soon toss cruise-ship crud overboard