Recently, Computerworld journalist Robert L. Mitchell undertook an interesting challenge. Using free or very low cost search tools, Mitchell attempted to gather as much information as he could about himself online. After weeks of exhaustive search, he was able to find his full legal name, address, Social Security number, his spouse’s name and her Social Security number, the price he paid for his home, mortgage documents, and a copy of his signature, and more.

From the article:

She had me at hello … or just about. Our conversation had barely started when privacy activist Betty Ostergren interrupted me to say that she had found my full name, address, Social Security number and a digital image of my signature on the Web.

I had set out to discover just how much information I could find about myself online, and Ostergren, who runs the Virginia Watchdog Web site, was my very first call. If this was what could be uncovered in just a few minutes, what else would I find? Quite a bit, as it turns out.

What information is available about you in cyberspace? Where does it come from? What risks does it present and what, if anything, can you do to protect yourself? To answer those questions I decided to use my own identity, Robert L. Mitchell, a national correspondent at Computerworld, as my research subject.

Starting with the information Ostergren had turned up about me, I spent a few weeks combing through more than two dozen public and private resources on the Web and visiting many other Web sites to build a dossier on myself. I conducted both free and paid searches. I contacted a private investigator for tips on my investigation. And I spoke with data aggregators and privacy experts.

At seven pages, the article is lengthy, but it’s definitely worth checking out the whole thing. There is also a worthwhile companion piece that details steps individuals can take to manage their “information footprint” online. Of course, for maximum control of your online identity, you should check out Reputation.com’s suite of industry-leading privacy and reputation management products.

Vivian Song has a well written article in the Toronto Sun that looks at how courts are taking online behavior into account when making rulings and handing down sentences. Quoting from the page:

Be careful what you post on Facebook or MySpace, because anything you say or upload can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Last year, for example, an Ottawa court heard that a civil servant had started a clandestine affair with an old friend she reconnected with through Facebook during a messy custody battle involving three kids.

In a Vancouver courtroom last month, defendants in a personal injury case produced photos from the plaintiff’s Facebook profile showing that while Myla Bagasbas was seeking $40,000 in damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment after a car accident, she was still able to kayak, hike and bike post-accident.

The fluid nature of real world identity is then contrasted with the still somewhat stunted world on online relationships:

While we’re able to compartmentalize and separate people in our lives offline by assigning titles to different spheres — co-workers, neighbours, family — the online world fails to recognize those distinctions.

The article then looks at how employers are relying on Google searches and social networking profiles to screen job applicants in the digital age. Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik is quoted as an expert.

“A resume is no longer what you send to your employer,” said Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik. “More people look at Google as a resume.”

But instead of authenticating information found online, people are trusting secondary material and treating Google like God.

“What happens is in a court of law, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Internet though, many decisions are based on lower standards,” Fertik said.

But is sanitizing a person’s online reputation of unflattering content an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?

“Only if you believe Google is the best and most accurate source of information,” Fertik said. “But I don’t think Google is God. I believe Google is a machine.”

Reputation.com Blog recently covered the second article that Ms. Song wrote for this three part tech series and we are pleased to be mentioned in this final piece, as well.

Back in November, we wrote about how Craigslist was facing increasing scrutiny from legislators, attorney generals, and law enforcement professionals for its “Erotic Services” section. Since that time, Craigslist has implemented a number of initiatives designed to curb abuse of the site by requiring credit card verification and phone number confirmations. According to Craigslist, these measures have caused a 90% drop in the number of Erotic Services listings.

It seems, however, that this was not enough for critics as Craigslist announced today that it will officially shut down its “Erotic Services” section and replace it with a new section labeled “Adult Services.” As reported at Ars Technica, all new listings to the Adult Services section will need to be manually approved by a Craigslist staffer. Additionally, Adult Services ads will now cost $10 each. Approved users will be able to re-post subsequent ads for $5.

While it will be interesting to see whether or not these measures effectively curb prostitution on Craigslist in the long term, it is more interesting to see how political pressure can be used to influence online media. Does this foreshadow increased government regulation of Internet in the future, or is this merely an isolated incident?

Vivian Song has a well written piece in the Toronto Sun that spotlights the security and privacy concerns that social networkers face on a daily basis. It mentions Facebook phishing schemes and online identity theft and also looks at how social media terms of service are often at odds with notions of brick and mortar privacy. Reputation.com gets covered as an industry leader.

Companies such as Reputation.com will scour the Internet and remove unflattering material that could sully their client’s online reputation. For example, when a grad student discovered a picture of her half-naked body posted by a bitter ex-boyfriend, she enlisted Reputation.com’s help. The company’s strategy is surprisingly simple: They ask the site host politely. They’re not a legal team, says founder Michael Fertik, but they’ve seldom had to resort to legal methods in the 10,000 removal requests made so far.

Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik is also quoted in the piece:

“People are alive to the fact that the web is not their enemy,” Fertik said from California. “It’s a fact of life and people want to have as much control over it as possible.”

The Toronto paper looks specifically at how Facebook’s terms of service impact Canadian privacy laws and also delineates how social networking is fundamentally altering how we percieve ourselves online and off. As more people connect with one another online, managing and monitoring one’s reputation will be critical.