Facebook Simplifies Its Privacy Controls

Today Facebook decided to simplify their privacy controls after several weeks of push back from users, they have decided to modify their privacy controls. Some of the new controls include:

• Restricting personal information so it can only be visible by friends, friends of friends, or everyone on the internet
• Changing its directory structure so only minimal information comes out when someone searches for other people
• Easier controls to turn on/off Facebook’s controversial ‘instant personalization’ feature

According to Facebook they implemented their original privacy controls in order to enhance the user's experience and provide them with the most accurate advertising possible. However, there is a fine line between a personalized experience and privacy. Was Facebook truly acting in their user's best interest or were they just making it easier for their competitors to mine their data? Many companies have started to turn to Facebook in order to see what precedence they set; because as the article states, "Facebook is a very large canary in the coal mine.”

I do not think Facebook acted in bad faith when they enabled their original privacy policies. They are trying to reshape the way social media conducts itself and what/how we deal with 'personal' information. There is nothing inherently 'dangerous' about someone joining a social networking site, because the user controls how much information they are willing to share with the rest of the world. If you do not want everyone to know that you are married with three kids and their names are John, Tom, and Sam; then don't publish this information. Also make sure that you advise your friends that would do not want any personal information about you to be shared online. Furthermore, if you do not like Facebook's privacy policy then leave Facebook and go to MySpace, LinkedIn, or another social site that suits your needs.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27facebook.html?ref=business

Big Pharma Fined for Over Marketing

Last month AstraZeneca was fined $520 million dollars for illegally marketing its schizophrenia drug, Seroquel. According to the federal investigation, AstraZeneca admitted to aggressive marketing practices that have expanded the new market of antipsychotic drugs for children and the elderly. Unfortunately, AstraZeneca is not the first company to be caught with unethical marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry but the fourth. The largest fine lobbied by the United States against a pharmaceutical company was in 2009 against Pfizer. Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion dollars in September 2009 for the off-labeling of the painkiller Bextra. The fine also covered $301 million for the illegal labeling of Geodon, an antipsychotic drug.

In the United States the antipsychotic drug industry is now the largest market segment, passing cholesterol-lowering drugs; this industry accounts for $14.6 billion of the nation's $300 billion drug industry.

In my opinion this push for antipsychotic drugs only solidifies the United States overmedication of children. Many children who come from broken homes or are labeled as 'problematic' need to be counseled instead of being forced to take these medications because it is the proverbial 'quick fix'. Unfortunately, if we do not regulate pharmaceutical companies everyone in the United States will be on some form of anti-psychotic medication for any old reason. These companies are tapping into our collective desires to exploit our fears. As Norman Bates once said, "We all go a little crazy sometimes", but that doesn't mean we have to just pop some pills and forget about our problems.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27drug.html