My first post to Google Buzz, the new social-networking service unveiled two days ago, was "Resistance is futile." It may well be that by integrating social sharing into your email stream, Google has produced yet one more free and compelling tool for managing the ever-increasing flow of news, information, gossip and trivia that we all swim in these days.

How to make use of the plus side of web cookies -- the nearly magical way they know where you've been and where you might like to go next -- without the unpleasant privacy implications is a question the Obama White House has been wrestling with. It's a fascinating problem, really. How does a web-savvy government connect with we the people without spooking us too badly in the process? About an hour ago, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy opened up a formal comment period for public input. What they're considering, they say, would be to take a tiered approach. Single session cookies, for example, would be treated with less strictness than persistent cookies that track our unique user characteristics.

Have your say here.

Yesterday's panel on global digital activism at the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington DC, moderated by moi, was a great chance to learn about powerful examples of online organizing that aren't as well-documented or as high-profile some others. (Video is here.) One case study in particular stood out: the "Freedom Not Fear" privacy campaign that drew more than 75,000 people to the streets of Germany in 2008. The campaign is ongoing, and the keys to its success thus far, said organizer Ralf Bendrath, are a simple message, persistent photographic documentation, a great deal of humor, this Stasi 2.0 street stencil, and, yes, Twitter. (A particular favorite from Bendrath's talk: this web overlay that empowers supporters to back the cause with a few lines of Javascript code.) If you're a student of digital activism, the Freedom Not Fear example is worth a deeper dive. (Photo by fabnie)

In a report released today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology are advancing the idea that the federal government's near-blanket ban on persistent cookies -- imposed by OMB back in 2000 after the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy was found to be tracking web visitors -- is too absolute. (Via Shaun Dakin) Without a way of compiling metrics on web use, the government can't intelligently measure whether what they're doing online is worth the effort. So EFF and CDT are proposing more nuanced limitations on the use of cookies and other tracking tools by Uncle Sam:

• Use data only for measurement Data collected for Web measurement should only be used for that purpose. Agencies should avoid outsourcing data collection to commercial partners.
• Prominently disclose Federal agencies using Web measurement tools on their sites should provide disclosures in their privacy policies about the tools.
• Offer choice Site visitors should be offered a choice about having their data collected for cross‑session measurement. The choice mechanism and the visitor’s choice status should be clearly visible on every page of the agency site.
• Limit data retention The individual‑level data collected for measurement purposes should be retained for no more than 90 days. The retention time frames should be disclosed, correlated to the purpose for which the data was collected, enforced through technology, and explicitly stated in commercial partner contracts.
• Limit cross‑session measurement Federal agencies should only use cross‑session measurement when single‑session measurement cannot be used to obtain the same metric.
• Obtain third‑party verification Agencies engaged in Web measurement and their partners should have their privacy compliance procedures regularly verified by their Inspectors General or a designated independent third party.

The full report is here.

Facebook has hired on a new public policy director, National Journal's Winter Casey reports. Tim Sparapani's resume almost seems cobbled together as a direct response to the arguably growing concerns over free speech and privacy as Facebook figures out how to manage its enormous user base. A former intern for Russ Feingold on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sparapani most recently served at the ACLU, with a particular focus on "the ever-growing surveillance society."

The set-up for tomorrow's "Privacy and Analytics on Government Web Sites" event in Washington DC promises a refreshing blend of techno-utopianism and cyber conspiracy thinking. The Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation are planning to explore the question of what it means to live in a world where the President of the United States wants to be your Facebook friend and the FBI is reading your tweets. The groups will also be announcing a joint report on how the federal government can properly balance the use of social media with respect for the privacy desires and creepiness tolerance of the American citizenry. RSVPs are requested, and you can do so here.

Sometime yesterday afternoon, a woman named Liz Thompson posted this tweet: "Roh-oh, looking at an email in my spam folder from Federal Bureau of Investigations saying, "Message from FBI." Dare I delete?" Guess who responded?

Whether the government or companies are snooping into the personal Internet records of private citizens is among the hottest public debates happening in the U.K. right now, and a privacy organization called the Open Rights Group is tapping into unease over Facebook's omniscience to hammer home the idea that it's weird when anyone knows that much about you. Statebook details the comings and goings, emails, phone calls, visits, work patterns, and intimate family facts about a fictional citizen by the name of Jack Smith. Eye catching, but there's education here too. Coupled with those details are explanations about the exact legislation, regulation, or database (like the ominously named "Intercept Modernisation Programme") that's got you living in a panopticon. Clever stuff.

Today's must-reading: Neil Munro's detailed look at Google's growing presence in Washington. He writes:

Executives at online-advertising giant Google are helping President Obama and Capitol Hill legislators get their messages out to the public, but they're facing nascent opposition from privacy advocates and small competitors who say Google is inappropriately using its presence on government Web sites to track users' political activities online. These critics say that Google, aided by the White House, is using "cookie" software and the popular goal of government transparency to boost its own revenues and to build a vast database of citizens' political attitudes.

• It was touch and go there for a while. Would Barack Obama emerge victorious from the first major face-off of his presidency? Would he prevail over the dark forces who sought stifle him? Obama for the win!
• You no doubt heard reports yesterday that new Obama White House staffers were upset to find themselves expected to communicate via smoke signals and semaphore. That's bunk, says former Bush Administration officials...
• Some are grumbling that the 72-hour-old WhiteHouse.gov is a huge disappointment...
• And more.