Entries from June 2011 ↓
June 20th, 2011 | Facebook, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Research | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about a new company that specializes in social media background checks, ponder the ramifications of Facebook’s upcoming music service, and debate the efficacy of anonymizing data.
–
It’s common knowledge that hiring managers and recruiters check job applicants’ social networking profiles prior to making hiring decisions. Now, however, a background check company exists that specializes in digging up dirt on applicants. At Forbes, privacy blogger Kashmir Hill writes about the company, Social Intelligence Corp., and how it works. Quoting the article, “Social Intelligence offers its services to employers en masse and builds files on people. If something job-threatening pops up on Facebook or Flickr or Craigslist in a search of you, you can’t just erase it so that future employers don’t come across it. Social Intelligence puts it into your file — and it stays there for seven years.” (My emphasis added.)
The fact that a company is building personality profiles based on your social networking presence is not all that surprising, but it may shock some people to know that something they said in their profile seven years ago could still come back to haunt them thanks to Social Intelligence.
Facebook’s planned partnership with Spotify and other companies for a new music service may offer users a new way to share and enjoy music, but it could also make privacy-conscious users uncomfortable. PCWorld describes the service, saying that in a special dashboard “users will reportedly see what their friends are listening to at the moment and what songs they’re previously played. If the user has recommended songs or listed them in his or her profile, notifications will appear when friends listen. The dashboard will also display music recommendations from friends and top songs and albums among the user’s social circle.” Presumably, there will be some people who don’t want to share their entire listening history with friends and Facebook’s attempts to automate that process may cause yet another privacy issue for the company.
According to a prediction from eMarketer Facebook will rank first in display advertising this year, garnering approximately $2 billion dollars in revenue. Facebook’s growth as an advertising platform demonstrates a simple reality about the company. First and foremost, Facebook is about selling advertising. That means that Facebook users aren’t customers, but are actually the products. It’s something to remember when one begins sharing information on the site.
In a column for the San Jose Mercury News, cybersafety expert Larry Magid writes that concern over facial recognition technology is warranted, but that specific fear over Facebook’s facial recognition feature is not. Quoting the article, “The prospect of someone snapping your picture with a cellphone and instantly comparing it to the billions of photos on Facebook is scary. I’ve already read stories speculating how stalkers and pedophiles could use it to identify and help track down potential victims. If that were possible, it would indeed be horrendous. What Facebook is actually doing is allowing users to compare a newly uploaded picture against pictures of people with whom they are already friends. If there is a potential match, Facebook suggests who that person might be. It’s up to the user to confirm the match and decide whether to tag the person.”
Magid goes on to clarify that facial recognition technology may still be an invasion of privacy, and it’s worth investigating possible regulatory action to prevent abuse. He also makes the important point that users have to be smart about the technology as well, writing that we should “remember that we live in a digital world where our ability to control what people know about us will forever remain a moving target.”
Many companies claim that user data is safe for sharing because it’s been “anonymized.” But how anonymous is data really? This article from Ars Technica discusses the issue and a new report from Ontario Information & Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D.and Khaled El Emam, Ph.D of the University of Ottawa. The report’s authors recognize that anonymizing data isn’t perfect, as evidenced by numerous high-profile instances where anonymous data was de-anonymized, but that it’s still an important part of protecting user privacy and security. To prove this point, the study team attempted to re-identify 15,000 anonymized individuals and only ended up successfully identifying two, “for a match rate of 0.013 per cent.”
June 17th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we share some final thoughts on the Anthony Weiner scandal, talk about Federal privacy legislation, and ponder the role that social media played in the Vancouver riots.
–
Besides the obvious lesson of “Don’t send naked pictures of yourself to strangers on the Internet,” there are many important takeaways from the sexting scandal that ended Rep. Anthony Weiner’s successful political career. This FOX News article from Gregory Giangrande, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer of Dow Jones, offers some additional insight. According to Giangrande, there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet, and people should have no expectation of Internet privacy either.
Technically, that’s not true. There should be and there is an expectation of privacy on the Internet, it’s just that Internet companies feast on personal data and do everything in their power to keep information public. Likewise, when Giangrande says there is no such thing as privacy, it’s more accurate to say that privacy is difficult and you should assume that whatever you share online could end up in the public. Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik explained this subtle, but critical difference in a recent interview with FOX 5 San Diego.
A 19-year-old college student at Molloy College was removed from the school’s softball team after her coach objected to “thug” language on the girl’s Facebook page. The softball player is now suing the college for discrimination, claiming that the “thug” label related not to her language, but rather to the fact that she was the only HIspanic player on the team. Whether the case proves that the coach and athletic staff were discriminating based on race, or that they had a legitimate reason to dismiss the student, this story demonstrates the critical role that Facebook plays in molding one’s reputation.
In an interesting article, Bobby Brooks at The Bleacher Report writes that the thousands of individuals who rioted on the streets of Vancouver following the Vancouver Canucks Game 7 loss in the Stanley Cup Finals found inspiration from one another by posting their actions on social media websites. Brooks writes of how many people openly bragged about their contributions to the riot on Facebook and Twitter and how one man, Brock Anton, has “become the poster-child of this movement and the target of anger from millions of citizens.” One has to wonder how Mr. Anton will get on with his life now that his name is forever linked to inciting riots in Google searches.
Wired.com reports that Senator Al Franken (D-MN) has introduced a new bill meant to “close current loopholes in federal law to ensure that consumers know what location information is being collected about them and allow them to decide if they want to share it.” Last month, Sen. Franken chaired a committee hearing on the issues of location tracking and mobile privacy. Representatives from Apple and Google came to the hearing to defend accusations that their companies improperly stored sensitive user data. According to Wired, Franken’s bill would require companies to get “explicit consent from users in order to share their location data,” and would punish individuals who used that information to stalk others.
According to CNET’s Declan McCullagh, “Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, said today he is optimistic that Congress would update a 1986 law, crafted in the pre-Internet era of telephone modems and the black-and-white Macintosh Plus, to protect the privacy of Americans who use the Internet and mobile phones.” The law to which Leahy is referring is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the update would “require police to obtain a search warrant to access private communications and the locations of mobile devices,” with the notable exception that police could still look up historical locations without a warrant.
June 16th, 2011 | Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Reputation.com News | Rob Frappier
As the world’s leader in online reputation management and personal privacy services, Reputation.com is frequently asked to participate in leading academic conferences on the issues. This evening, Noah Lang will proudly represent Reputation.com as a guest at the 2011 Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C.
Entitled “The Privacy Tipping Point?”, Noah’s panel will explore issues of personal privacy amid rapid technological and commercial changes. For more information on the event, check out a detailed panel description below.
To follow CFP2011 on Twitter, track the hashtag #cfp2011.
–
The Privacy Tipping Point?
Thursday, June 16, 2011; 4:45 PM – 5:45 PM
As the Orwellian real-time data tracking and auctioning off of individuals is adopted throughout the world, including in repressive regimes, are we witnessing the creation of a combined political and commercial surveillance society? U.S.-based companies and technologies are transforming the global digital marketplace, including through the development of far-reaching approaches designed to integrate advanced data collection techniques with applications that influence unconscious behavior. All the leading digital marketing companies and many global advertisers, for example, are using forms of neuromarketing designed to bypass conscious decision-making, including Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. U.S. companies are also in the forefront of exporting technologies and a business model–known as real-time bidding–where users are bought and sold in milliseconds. Such practices are now found in both the EU and in Asia, including in regimes with human rights violations. Online marketers throughout the world propose a largely uniform approach to ensuring privacy safeguards for such practices–principally self-regulation. There are also new possibilities for the personal management of data profiles proposed to address such concerns. This panel will explore the latest developments in technologically advanced personalized data targeting, the role of the leading online marketing companies, new approaches to policy and safeguard development, and implications to the future of democracy and human rights.
Moderator:
Cecilia Kang: Washington Post
Panelists:
Jeff Chester: Center for Digital Democracy
Fran Maier: TRUSTe
Cédric Laurant: Cedric Laurant Consulting
Noah Lang: Reputation.com
Tamir Israel: Technology Lawyer, CIPPIC
Scott B. Meyer: CEO, Evidon
June 16th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Twitter | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about LulzSec’s latest hack attack, why one PR pro’s Twitter outburst cost his agency a key client, whether it’s the right time for federal data breach legislation, and why the Connecticut Attorney General wants to talk to Facebook.
–
The hacker group LulzSec has taken credit for another high-profile cyber attack following the successful take down of the CIA’s public website, CIA.gov. According to reports, LulzSec used a relatively straight-forward DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack to disable the site temporarily. The CIA hack is the latest in a string of high-profile attacks by the group.
The head of a PR agency lost a valuable client after lashing out at journalists on Twitter. The PR pro, who was handling publicity for the new Duke Nukem video game, used Twitter to criticize journalists who gave the game negative reviews. Following a backlash against his comments from journalists, 2K Games dismissed the agency and issued a public statement on Twitter distancing itself from the remarks.
In an op-ed for the Huffington Post, Robert Holleyman, CEO of the Business Software Alliance, argues in support of draft legislation being introduced by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) that would require companies to notify customers of data breaches.
Holleyman writes, “In the absence of a national law, all but a handful of states have already enacted their own data breach notification requirements. Unfortunately, this has created a legal patchwork that is unwieldy for businesses and potentially confusing to consumers. We need a uniform, national framework that protects consumers and preempts this patchwork of state laws.”
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen has called on Facebook to explain its new facial recognition technology, which raised privacy concerns over its “tag suggestions” feature. According to Jepsen, “The lack of an opt-in process for Facebook users is troubling because unknowing consumers may have their photos tagged and matched using facial recognition software without their express consent, potentially exposing them to unwelcome attention and loss of privacy.” Facebook has acknowledged that it could have been clearer about the feature during the roll-out process, but this isn’t the first time the company has apologized for a privacy issue after the fact.
June 15th, 2011 | Facebook, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about another high-profile Facebook hire, as well as thoughts on why some people might be leaving the popular social networking website.
–
In yet another move that strengthens the company’s ties to influencers in Washington D.C., Facebook has hired Joe Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, to serve as Facebook’s Vice President of Global Communications. Facebook has been increasing its presence in Washington D.C. recently with numerous high-profile hires, including the addition of two former staffers for President Bush as lobbyists. In some circles, Facebook’s influence in Washington D.C. is a concern, especially in light of pending Internet privacy legislation in Congress.
A U.K. juror may go to jail for contempt of court after it was revealed that she had contact via Facebook with the acquitted defendant from the case she was jurying. The woman’s Facebook messages revealed that she did not take the case seriously, noting that she spent more of her time doodling than taking notes on the case. Facebook and jury duty have proved a tricky combination for many individuals. In the United States, there have been several instances where a juror’s comments during a trial have thrown the case into a tailspin for prosecutors.
In an interesting op-ed for the Chicago Tribune, Mary Schmich discusses the recent claims that six million Americans users left Facebook in the last month and offers an answer for why some people are beginning to tire of the site. Schmich writes that “Part of the problem with Facebook is how good it is at the thing it was invented to do, which is to put you in contact with people. Contact with people turns out to be a mixed blessing. The more people you’re in contact with, the more people there are for you to disappoint, offend, annoy — and the other way around. Though Facebook entertains, diverts and sometimes educates, it also multiplies all the problems that come with relationships.”
Consider the fact that most Facebook users have way more online friends than actual friends and the issue becomes even more pronounced. For some, the risk of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time in front of the wrong person is too great to continue using Facebook, despite its myriad benefits.
A new online marketplace company called Copious hopes to find success by flipping the tables on traditional auction websites. The company, founded by a former Facebook marketing executive, will require all buyers and sellers to link their Copious accounts to their Facebook accounts to create a more social shipping experience and to cut down on the anonymity that plagues Ebay users. Quoting Mashable, “Ideally, buyers get a better idea of who they’re buying from. They’ll also get more insight on what their social network friends are buying, sharing and commenting on. Sellers, meanwhile, will have the opportunity to showcase their expertise on Copious and across the web. “
