Privacy seems to be in the news this week; whether it concerns whois data, or what you are highlighting as
in the case of Amazon’s e-book.
The big controversy is over the remote functionality of Amazon to upload and store the user notes and
highlights that users make on the Kindle, which is supposedly used for “popular highlights.”
Amazon has tried to ease concerns with an assurance that the data is an aggregate and not a privacy
violation, but for the users who were unaware this was taking place at all, this is of little comfort.
In my opinion, Amazon has not done their due diligence here.
A “more than” significant portion of these Kindle users are also air- travelers; and after having their personal
belongings x-rayed, scrutinized, and all privacy violated after walking shoeless through a metal detector, the
last thing they want to hear is that their thoughts (via highlighted passages) are now under review as well.
Its not surprising that Amazon’s intentions for the data are being questioned.
However, Amazon’s intentions are not the only ones being questioned online recently; Mariano Favazza is
wondering what the intentions of the owner of the website www.marianofavazza.com, are.
Mariano Favazza is a St. Louis circuit clerk, who during his re-election campaign, discovered stories and
photos about him, on a website with his name!
The whois is masked and registered at Godaddy.com.
Mariano is frustrated that he cannot find out who owns it through normal channels, and according to one
commentary, they do not believe that laws requiring disclosure ( who pays for political advertising in print
or on radio or TV) applies here.
I would disagree when you consider the following;
The site owner has posted photos of Favazza at various events, many appear to be taken without Mr.
Favazza’s knowledge.
The hyperlinks show newspaper and magazine articles about Favazza.
Some appear to be highlighting frivoulous stories.
The hyperlink titles themselves seem to be purposely unflattering.
They are currently holding off litigation due to the fact that an old Missouri law that the Missouri Ethics
Commission and Missouri courts have never addressed the issue regarding a website.
The original law states that “printed matters” involving an election or candidate — such as newspaper ads,
pamphlets, billboards and posters — must list the name of the person, business or committee paying for it.
I would contend that in the wake of many big name newspapers folding, no pun intended, that online news is the inheritor of print and should be provided for elsewhere in Missouri law.
However, and according to current Missouri law, the subsequent required disclosure must include a full legal name and, in some cases, an address.
An actual violation could lead to a civil fine or possibly, criminal prosecution.
Missouri sent its Senator Jeff Smith, D-St. Louis, to prison last year after he lied to FBI agents and federal
election officials about an anonymous mail attack on his opponent in the 2004 election.
Beyond this, there are a slew of cases online regarding a public personality and their name.
One for example, is Kathy Griffin, where she sued the KathyGriffin.com owner after an attempted $3500 “ransom” e-mail.
The excerpt from the suit that I find most intriguing reads: “Defendants are also trading on plaintiff’s good
reputation and recognizable name for a commercial purpose, converting the potential economic value in
plaintiff’s identity to their advantage and reaping the uncompensated benefit from the unauthorized use of
plaintiff’s name and identity,”
Currently the whois reflects Kathy Griffin and her attorneys.
Having said that, there is no guarantee that something you make public can be instantly and permanently
removed from the internet.
Concerned about her career prospects, college student Min Liu asked a friend to take down a photograph
of her drinking and wearing a tight dress.
When the woman overseeing her internship asked to join her Facebook circle, Ms. Liu agreed, but limited
access to her Facebook page. “I want people to take me seriously,” she said.
The big question mark here is why did you talk to the NYT if you were concerned with privacy?
Is it only Facebook you are worried about Ms. Liu?
I know that I personally would not have known anything about this, had I not read it in the NYT.
Perhaps reading is not as big of a concern as seeing pictures?
However if you were to read it on Amazon kindle and highlight it, once again someone would be archiving it for some nebulous purpose.
What can we learn from this and how does this affect our industry?
First, please stop sharing sensitive photos and materials online. Once its public, you have eliminated much
of your rights to control the use of said media.
Public domain and intent will come into question and you are going have an uphill battle arguing against your own actions.
Next, we need to approach matters of privacy from the other side of the coin with a careful, methodical,
systematic strategy and do our due diligence and research; Masked whois are only masked to an extent, and careful legal strategy and industry expertise can make the hidden visible again.
This is key to protecting your Reputation Online.
If you need help with your online reputation management, Metamend has proven solutions and industry
experts to assist you.
Have a question and need quick answers? 
