Surprise, disgust and sheer terror were just a few of the emotions experienced by students who logged-on this week to get their Facebook fix. While many students have complained that the new design is confusing and worse than the old version, what is far more alarming is the increased accessibility to personal information.
With a new format and the addition of 'mini-feed,' a feature that now gives an updated play-by-play of everything a user's friends do, personal information has become even easier to get. Instead of digging deep to stalk an acquaintance, now students will have a visible, well-organized sheet of exactly what that person did that day. Whether someone thinks this feature tramples on their privacy or not, the problem is the user can't just click a button below the mini-feed window to disable it. The Web site desperately needs an easy-access disable button for such an intruding feature; that way it will accommodate those that are angry about this exposure as well as those who find mini-feed useful.
Although Facebook provides a free service to university students, they should still give students privacy options when they change the format of the Web site. Students should have been provided the opportunity to opt in for the mini-feed feature, rather than have to opt out to get rid of it. Facebook should have asked students if the feature was for them, rather than forcing it upon everyone.
Changing format without warning was the mistake. Next time such a popular service should preview and check for their loyal users approval.
How much is too much? Mini-feed is too much.
Shocking punishment for shocking situation
Death penalty for local soldier is outrageously severe
Washington is pitted with another hard punishment decision - one that left unchecked could lead to the wrongful deaths of four American soldiers.
Buffalo area soldier Juston R. Graber and three others of the 101st Airborne Division have been charged with murder of four Iraqis, and now face a possible sentencing of the death penalty. While engaging Iraqis under heavy gunfire, the four soldiers ended killing detainees, captured Iraqis, who according to the soldiers attacked them. The soldiers testified that it was a matter of self-defense. The courts, as well as the military investigators, believe that these soldiers were engaged in foul play and had staged the attack, wrongly killing the innocent captors.
The military has been treading on fragile ground ever since the tragedy of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but this situation is different from the same premeditated cruelty.
First off, the events leading to the death of four Iraqis is still not firmly pieced together. There were no pictures showing soldiers torturing prisoners, and the accusations are, as of right now, relying on conflicting testimonies.
Second, this event happened in a combat situation, an experience that a civilian cannot fully understand. Soldiers are frequently placed in "shoot or be shot" situations, and the basic instinct of survival does not involve calm and rational thinking. Being in a prolonged war situation does a number on some people's minds. And these effects should be considered.
Within our very borders domestic "crimes of passion" are given special consideration when presented in courts. Although this concept isn't an official law, defense lawyers have used the notion to draw more sympathy for their clients. With that in mind, how can the government say that in combat situations stress and passion cannot factor in? The trauma and rage that occurs between a jealous husband and housewife does not measure up to the intense shock that affects many soldiers on and off duty.
The matter needs to be taken seriously, but not rashly. Washington might be trying to prevent the next Abu Ghraib, but they shouldn't do so at the expense of possibly innocent men.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
