yoga64023

It's true.

Your ex could have viewed your myspace profile 44 times last week.

Your manager could be viewing your profile on a daily basis.

You could have some crazy cyberstalker that you don't know about.

Unfortunately you may never know, because Myspace doesn't allow you to see who viewed your page. That was until a little site popped up a while ago by the name of Profilesnoop.com.

Profilesnoop.com's motto is "Snoop on them while they snoop on you". How many of us haven't secretly viewed the pages of our exes, enemies, old high school crushes, co-workers, etc.? We all do it.

Profilesnoop.com provided you with a code to input into your myspace profile. This code would track all visitors that viewed your site, literally snapping a photo of them When you signed on your profilesnoop.com account, it had all that information neatly summarized and ready for you to view.

I was on the of the lucky ones who actually got to use it before it was shut down by Myspace. For about a week, I had this wonderful little tool on my profile. It was just a bit of code, entered in the "Who I'd like to meet" section, not visible to anyone but myself.

It captured photos of anyone who viewed my profile, along with the date, time and IP address. I would automatically be re-directed to a person's mypsace profile by clicking on their photo. Some were my own friends, others were a huge surprise. I found out that I was getting regular views from the last guy I dated and his on-again/off-again girlfriend. who knew?

Of course, it was too good to last. Only five days after I registered with the site, the forums were buzzing with talk about the code being stripped from their profiles, along with all the text and photos in their "Who I'd like to meet" section. Apparently, the code is in violation of myspace's privacy policy.

By the next day, it was gone from my profile as well. I was sad to see it go. but it brings me to this question, is it right for Myspace to block me from being able to know who visits my profile?

I'm sure it won't be long before profilesnoop.com manages to find a way to get back up and running or all the other copy-cat sites start popping up. And when they do, I'll be there... ready to sign up.

Of course, if we do manage to find a way to see who's viewing our MySpace profiles, this means that others will know that we are viewing theirs. Would this damper our MySpace experience by making us think twice before "cyber-stalking" someone? Maybe. but then again, maybe not.

Copyright 2006 Rebecca Fuentes

http://myspaceoryours.blogspot.com

As broadband internet becomes more mainstream, one of the most common questions we get is: which is better, cable or dsl?

The answer to that question is not so definite. Many factors come into play when deciding which high-speed connection to choose. Regardless of which you choose (DSL, cable, or even Satellite) its going to be a ton better (and faster) than that ancient dialup modem youve been using. not to mention, your internet experience will be much more enjoyable.

dsl (Digital subscriber Line)

Just like your existing dialup modem, dsl uses your existing copper wire phone line to deliver data at high speed. To qualify for dsl, you need the following:

- a phone line

- a dsl modem (which normally comes with the service)

- an ethernet card or an available usb port ( most dsl modems allow both connections, but ethernet is recommended).

- a phone company (ISP) that is offering dsl service (e.g., Verizon)

one important factor that will influence your dsl connection is the distance between your home or office and the phone companys central office. The farther away you are from the central office, the signal becomes weaker, thus a slower connection. With that said, dsl is not as available widespread compared to cable. Youll need to contact your local phone provider to check availability.

speed wise, depending on the package you choose, dsl can range from 128 kbps to 3 mbps. Generally, the faster your connection the more expensive your service will be. You can expect to pay around $25-$30 a month for a 768 kbps connection, which is roughly 13 times faster than a 56k dialup modem.

::Pros::
- Relatively cheaper than cable
- Dedicated line, so speeds are almost guaranteed
- You can talk on the phone at the same time while surfing the net

::Cons::
- slower speeds compared to cable
- Speeds drop the farther away your home/office is from the central office
- not available in all areas

cable internet

cable internet gets our recommendation. cable, which you can probably already tell, uses the coaxial cable that your television uses. To qualify for cable internet, you need the following:

- a cable modem ( which normally comes with the service)

- an ethernet card or an available usb port (most cable modems allow both connections, but ethernet is recommended)

- a cable company offering cable internet (e.g., Adelphia)

Unlike dsl, cable internet does not depend on the distance between your home or office and the central office. However, unlike dsl, cable connections are typically shared among your neighbors. Although, most cable companies provide pipelines with huge bandwidth that this rarely becomes an issue.

speed wise, cable internet typically ranges from 3 mbps to 10 mbps, up to 3-4 times faster than dsl. However, expect to pay more for the service - $40-$50 per month.

::Pros::
- Faster speeds than dsl
- More widespread than dsl
- distance does not affect speed

::Cons::
- More expensive than dsl
- Line is shared with other users

With all that said, you need to think about what type of user you are. If you are a heavy internet user and downloader, you would highly benefit from a broadband connection. For the light users who use the internet just to check emails, are probably better off with a dialup. However, if you are willing to splurge some cash on a broadband connection, then by all means, upgrade!

Mark Pascua is the webmaster of PersonalConfuser.net, a computer how-to and tips website.

I use microsoft Word, Outlook, Excel and many other office programs. Do you use the same? What many of us to not know is that in each email and office file we create, we are also creating a hidden trail of data about our documents. These programs automatically save information such as who worked on the document, when and for how long was the document open, who printed the document, when was it printed and from what work station. In addition to personally identifying information, is private comments used for intra office use as well as a trail of all content that was deleted from a document. For those of us who are in the know, it is not difficult at all to retrieve some if not all of this information from every document that is sent to us. The question clearly beckons, should lawyers review metadata in documents? Is reviewing this data ethical, when the author of such data likely had no idea they were creating it?

Metadata by its definition is simply, data about data. It can contain all sort of identifying information. one of the easiest ways for metadata to be left in a document is for the comments section to leave the comments feature turned on. Similarly, if you leave track changes turned on, the receiving attorney can not only read confidential comments that were meant to be intra-office or privileged communications between he attorney and client, but also the attorney can see what content was deleted from the document.

In a recent american bar Association opinion by its ethics committee, reviewing issues such as metadata sent to lawyers, the committee stated that reviewing metadata meets with the professional responsibility guidelines. 06-442 (August 5, 2006). The committee did add the footnote, This opinion assumes that the receiving lawyer did not obtain the electronic documents in a manner that was criminal, fraudulent, deceitful, or otherwise improper, for example, by making a false statement of material fact to opposing counsel or to any other third person (Model Rule 4.1(a)), using a method of obtaining evidence that violated the legal rights of a third person (Model Rule 4.4(a)), or otherwise engaging in misconduct (Model Rule 8.4). Such scenarios are beyond the scope of this opinion.

Perhaps even more interesting than the opinion itself, the committee stated that there is no specific language in the ABA model Rules of professional Conduct that would forbid an attorney from reviewing the metadata in electronic documents. The ABA model Rules of professional Conduct Rule 4.4(b) reads: A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyers client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender. However, when an attorney receives a document that they requested, and the opposing counsel is negligent in removing or redacting information, it is not the job of the receiving attorney to censor what they read.

Is it negligent for an attorney to send an electronic document such as a microsoft word document or archived email file without first scrubbing it for metadata? This question beckons an analysis of whether even in todays technologically savvy business and legal environment, the reasonable attorney is aware of metadata and how it can possibly breach privilege by sending confidential comments, or reviling trade secrets, in addition to arming the opposing the counsel with great evidence for a deposition and cross examination. Does the attorney have a duty to scrub the file and does that duty extend to files sent to the attorney by the client to hold similar to an escrow agent holding funds? If there is a duty does simply sending a file breach that duty? Even if a breach occurred is there an injury to the attorneys client and was the damage proximately caused by the breach where the attorney sent the document?

It is my contention that too much has been written on the existence of metadata in the past couple of years for someone to not know of its existence. Yet, to understand how to clear out metadata, or even all of the specific details it contains may fall outside the scope of what a reasonable attorney might know. As such, I would suggest that it is fair to review metadata, but at the same time, I believe it is also fair that you must inform the sender of their mistake.

Should Lawyers use Metadata was written by Michael Goldstein for the Law office of Goldstein and Clegg, a

massachusetts civil litigation law firm.