Entries Tagged 'Quick Hits' ↓
October 12th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about data collection online, Facebook’s desire for younger users, an annoying Spotify bug, and concerns over frictionless sharing online.
–
A new report from the Stanford Center for Internet and Society reveals just how rampant data collection is online and how difficult it is for individuals to protect their information while browsing the Web. According to PCMag, “researchers created an account and interacted with 185 Web sites that offered a sign up, did not require a purchase, and had limited features so as to be practical for the study. They were able to identify a username or user ID leaked to a third party on 113 of those Web sites. The top five sites that received the data were: comScore, Google Analytics, Quantcast, Google’s DoubleClick, and Facebook.” The way that this leaked information can be used to create a detailed profile of individuals is worrying to government regulators who are considering enacting a “Do Not Track” law to protect personal privacy online.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Emily Bazelon explains why Facebook wants to amend the federal Child Online Privacy Protection Act to make it easier for kids under the age of 13 to join the site, writing that “Facebook has tripled its spending on lobbying, formed a political action committee and hired former Bush and Obama officials to push for its agenda.” Despite the company’s efforts, however, it appears that new child privacy legislation may be on the horizon with Congress considering a proposal that “would bar Web sites outright from using kids’ data to target ads to them until they are 17.”
Spotify angered fans recently when it forced users to sign-in through Facebook with the social sharing option enabled by default. Spotify quickly backtracked and added a private listening option, but the company missed an important bug, which caused users to continue to sharing music even after opting out. According to ZDNet, “Apparently, the Spotify app disregarded users having disconnected their Facebook accounts, and logged them back in the next time they loaded the app. As a result, users who explicitly said they no longer wanted to share their music listening activity with their Facebook friends may have continued to share songs on the social network.”
This article from The Hill discusses how privacy groups and some congressional leaders are concerned over Facebook’s recently announced “frictionless sharing” feature. Quoting the article, Facebook “points out that users still have complete control over which applications share their data and who has access to different types of profile information…but privacy advocates respond that the controls are either too complex or wrongly make public sharing the default option.”
October 11th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we follow up on a three-year old Facebook firing, consider social media and politics, discuss Facebook profiles and college admissions, and ponder the privacy implications of the growing “cyberarms” race.
–
A former Georgia schoolteacher who was fired three years ago after an anonymous parent complained about a photo on her Facebook profile recently faced a setback in her lawsuit against the school district. The teacher had filed a lawsuit asking for her job to be reinstated, but that claim was rejected because of technical issues related to when her teaching contract expired. Her attorney still is working on winning monetary damages in the case, arguing that the teacher was not informed of her rights at the time of the incident.
Big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook are becoming more and more involved in hosting political events and debates, demonstrating a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” savvy that may help them when the issue of privacy legislation. As the AP explains, “social media giants like Facebook and Google are hosting debates and sponsoring presidential town halls. They remain indispensable tools for candidates looking to connect with voters. The companies get great public exposure for their attachment to the presidential campaign. It also helps their business interests by nurturing relationships with political leaders.”
This article from Huffington Post’s new High School section talks about how college admissions officers are using Facebook to screen applicants and shares advice on how high school students can clean up their profiles to make a good impression. As one teen in the article explains, “I treat my profile as a way for college admissions officers to get to know me outside of my academic accomplishments.”
This article from the Financial Times discusses how the “cyberarms race” between world powers may end up forcing personal privacy protections to disappear. Quoting the article, “an internet increasingly policed by intelligence agencies will be reshaped to fit country borders, says Peter Dombrowski, of the Naval War College in the US. Nations fearing attack will find ways to inspect electronic traffic just as they do people.”
October 7th, 2011 | CyberBullying, Facebook, Google, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, Facebook is hit with a lawsuit, Google adds some privacy features to Google+, and Barnes & Noble tries to swoop in on Borders’ customer base.
–
A Kansas man recently filed a lawsuit against Facebook alleging that the company violated federal wiretap laws by tracking browsing data on users after they logged off the service. As ABC News explains, however, the litigation may be unsuccessful because it is difficult to prove harm in these kinds of cases. Quoting the article, “Experts say the Kansas litigation faces an uphill battle since courts in the past have tossed out similar cases against Facebook and others filed under wiretap law, finding such computer cookies are not wiretaps. In those cases that do end up being litigated the plaintiffs typically lose because they cannot prove any harm.”
There is a movement among some privacy activists to reframe what constitutes “privacy harm” in a legal sense. Stanford’s Ryan Calo has been a leading voice in the debate over the meaning of privacy harm and was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject last year.
Slate’s Katherine Goldstein has an amusing and interesting article about how her father has been “stalking” her on Twitter. Since the author showed her father how to use the site, he has been monitoring all of her updates and responding to them regularly, leading to some embarrassment and awkwardness. The article presents an interesting dynamic that many adults are facing as their older parents adopt social media technologies.
The U.S. News and World Report reports that a handful of media companies have teamed up to raise awareness about bullying with a multi-pronged digital campaign. Quoting the article, “media companies such as CNN, Cartoon Network, Facebook, and Time Inc. have started an online anti-bullying campaign designed to raise awareness. The companies launched the “Stop Bullying, Speak Up” Facebook page to give students and parents a place to voice their support for victims of bullying.” The campaign hopes to increase the number of “active bystanders” by encouraging people who speak up about bullying when they see it.
In a bid to further establish itself as the social networking website for privacy-conscious users, Google+ has added a handful of new privacy controls. According to VentureBeat, Google now lets you disable comments on Google+ posts and lock posts prior to publishing them. Previously, users would have to share the post publicly, before setting up privacy restrictions. The change is relatively simple, but intuitive and reflective of Google’s apparent desire to make Google+ the anti-Facebook in terms of privacy and sharing.
When Borders went bankrupt recently, its competitor Barnes & Noble swooped in to buy the company’s customer lists for a cool $14 million. But in purchasing the e-mail list, Barnes & Noble has drawn the wrath of consumer watchdog groups who say that the bookstore chain’s opt-out notice to customers was too vague. Regulators asked Barnes & Noble to give consumers explicit control to transfer their information to the new company, but Barnes & Noble refused to use the requested language.
October 5th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about professional social media profiles, the Supreme Court’s upcoming privacy cases, and why Facebook’s new “Timeline” profile may be risky to those trying to keep their web habits secret.
–
It’s common knowledge that employers look at prospective job candidates’ Facebook pages, but they’re not only looking to disqualify people. They are also looking for things that distinguish candidates. This article from Forbes’ Kashmir Hill discusses a new survey from Reppler that shows 68% of hiring managers have hired an employee based on positive social media impressions. According to the survey, 39% of employers hired someone because their profile “gave a positive impression of their personality and organizational fit.” Creativity and being well-rounded were two other attributes that earned high marks from hiring managers.
The United States Supreme Court will hear several cases in its new term related to personal privacy. CNET’s Declan McCullagh breaks down the Supreme Court’s privacy cases, including one that will determine whether GPS tracking by law enforcement is legal without a search warrant. This is the first time the court has addressed this issue since the 1980s, when tracking technology was significantly less advanced.
In this article for CNET, Dennis O’Reilly discusses the National Labor Relations Board’s efforts to protect individuals who have been fired for posting inappropriate, but legally allowed, content on their online profiles. O’Reilly also offers tips to employers on how to craft an effective social media policy that doesn’t quell speech, as well as tips to employees on how to act online so as to avoid getting in trouble with one’s boss.
Most of the press surrounding Facebook’s recent profile overhaul has focused on the site’s drastically different new look, but The Globe and Mail touches on a smaller, but arguably more important change. According to The Globe and Mail, Facebook has changed how users can untag themselves in photos, making it much harder for individuals to manage their online image. Quoting the article, “After a small interface switchup, Facebook now only offers users a one-click way to hide the photo on their profile – but not to get rid of the tag itself. The photo will still be identified in the album of the person who posted it, should anyone see it there. The link will still go to your page. And most importantly, Facebook itself will still know that it’s you in that picture.” Facebook’s desire for more tags, at the cost of user control, reveals the company’s true position on privacy.
This amusing and insightful article from the Sophos security blog discusses how Facebook’s new “Timeline” profile design may pose major problems for individuals who want to keep their online actions private. The article also discusses how difficult editing one’s timeline is, saying, “Facebook has made it as simple as pie to edit your Timeline, if you like pie that’s really bad. It amounts to a grueling item-by-item scouring, a drop-down click for each item.” Facebook has announced that the Timeline rollout will occur on October 11th. At that time, there will surely be an uproar from a good portion of the company’s 800+ million users, but will it be enough to warrant any action?
October 4th, 2011 | Facebook, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about the return of the Facebook tracking cookie, firing employees for social media posts, the fight against online scammers, and a privacy lawsuit against the Internet radio station Pandora.
–
According to Australian hacker Nic Cubrilovic, Facebook recently reactivated a controversial tracking cookie. According to ZDNet, “the cookie was being set even if the user had never been to the Facebook site, and even if he or she didn’t click on a given Facebook widget.” The first time this cookie was exposed, it led to widespread criticism of Facebook and a prominent article in the Wall Street Journal.
Every day, scammers and other cyber-criminals use Facebook to con people out of money or sensitive personal information. Now, Facebook is taking steps to protect users from scammers. According to CNN, “[Facebook] is teaming up with Websense, a San Diego, California-based Internet security firm, to warn users when they’re about to leave Facebook for a site that might be trying to steal their personal data.” This prompt will help users avoid phishing attacks and protect their personal information online.
The National Labor Relations Board has stepped up to defend several individuals who were fired from their jobs over social media posts, but a recent ruling reveals that the organization is being careful in its considerations. According to the Chicago Tribune, an administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that ”a BMW car dealership in Lake Bluff did not violate federal labor law in firing a salesman after he embarrassed the company in a Facebook post.” The employee’s post criticized the car dealership for serving low-quality food instead of something that better reflected the dealership’s luxury brand.
The popular Internet radio service Pandora has been sued for sharing user data. According to The Register, “Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act has been cited in a new class action lawsuit against Pandora, claiming $5,000 damages per person. The lawsuit says that by making playlists and histories public and searchable by Google, privacy was violated.” The Pandora lawsuit echos concerns over the music sharing site Spotify, which recently ran into trouble over a forced integration with Facebook that left many users sharing listening information that they wanted to keep private.
