Entries Tagged 'Social Networking' ↓
August 2nd, 2011 | Facebook, Google, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Research, Social Networking | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about a researcher’s claims that social media is creating a generation of narcissists (and why that assessment may not be backed up by science). We also have info on Facebook’s facial recognition technology, tips on online etiquette, and news on Microsoft’s location sharing policies.
–
British researcher Baroness Greenfield is warning that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media could be creating “a generation obsessed with themselves, who have short attention spans and a childlike desire for constant feedback on their lives.” Despite this dire proclamation, however, the Guardian’s science blogger Martin Robbins writes that Greenfield’s warnings are overblown. In a response, Robbins writes that no research has been performed on the issue and criticized the professor for using the media “as a platform to push her theories to the public.”
In a recent statement, Johannes Caspar, data protection commissioner for the state of Hamburg, criticized Facebook’s new facial recognition feature, saying that he doesn’t think the technology “conforms with EU data protection law.” Caspar says his office has “repeatedly asked Facebook to shut down the facial recognition function and to delete the previously stored data,” without success. The feature, which has been available in the United States since December 2010, uses facial recognition technology to identify a user’s friends in a photo and suggests “tagging” them.
A special feature in the Toronto Sun discusses digital etiquette and how responsible social networking can help protect one’s online reputation. In the article, social media experts Scott Stratten and Dave Larsen offer several smart pieces of advice including a reminder to “never say, text, tweet or upload anything you don’t want to see on a billboard with your name, face and logo on it with your boss, mom and best client driving by.”
Microsoft, which has positioned itself as a champion of consumer privacy issues among tech companies, has quietly announced that it will stop publishing estimated location data from its smartphones. Microsoft’s decision comes as Google and Apple are still feeling the negative effects of reports that they surreptitiously tracked user data from mobile devices.
July 25th, 2011 | Facebook, Google, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Social Networking | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about Google’s most recent foray into facial recognition technology, as well as insight from privacy experts on why facial recognition can be invasive.
–
Anonymity online can be a sensitive issue. Many believe using pseudonyms is necessary to preserve an open dialogue online, while others believe that anonymity breeds irresponsibility and contributes to cyberbullying and defamation. With it’s new social network, Google+, Google has forced users to use their real names on the service. This article by ComputerWorld’s Barbara Krasnoff discusses Google’s decision and why the company has garnered support for its policy and why it has also faced criticism.
Despite previous claims to the contrary, Google is pursuing an interest in facial recognition technology. According to the Washington Post, Google just acquired PittPatt, a facial recognition technology company that originally began as a research project at Carnegie-Mellon University. Quoting the Post, “the company’s software identifies facial structures in photos and tracks them in video.” In a statement, a Google spokesperson said “we won’t add face recognition to our apps or product features unless we have strong privacy protections in place, and that’s still the case.” That “strong privacy protections” caveat is important, because Google’s perception of privacy may be far different than the average consumer.
In yet another privacy slip-up tied to the company’s Street View service, Google reportedly collected millions of hardware IDs, known as MAC addresses, tied to personal computers and mobile phones. CNET’s Declan McCullagh writes on the privacy significance of this revelation: “Wi-Fi-enabled devices, including PCs, iPhones, iPads, and Android phones, transmit a unique hardware identifier to anyone within a radius of approximately 100 to 200 feet. If someone captured or already knew that unique address because they had access to the device, Google’s application programming interface, or API, revealed where that device was located, a practice that can reveal personal information including home or work addresses or even the addresses of restaurants frequented.” While accessing a MAC address is somewhat difficult, it’s not impossible and a determined cyberstalker could potentially learn a lot about an individual by tracking his or her location data.
William D. Cohan has an interesting column on the new social media background check company, Social Intelligence. In it, Cohan talks about a recent New York Times article on Social Intelligence and pulls out some of the best reader’s comments – both for and against the monitoring service. After sharing thoughts on both sides of the issue, Cohan smartly closes with this advice: “Given the existence of companies like Social Intelligence, it just makes common sense not to put anything in an e-mail or social networking post that you wouldn’t be proud to see on the front page of the New York Times.”
A glitch in Facebook exposed thumbnail images and text descriptions of users’ private videos. According to TechCrunch’s Jason Kincaid, “Clicking on the thumbnail to a video that was supposed to be private would yield a ‘This video either has been removed from Facebook or is not visible due to privacy settings’ message, so you couldn’t watch it. But in some cases an incriminating thumbnail or lewd title could be enough to get someone into a trouble. And even if a video description didn’t show anything incriminating, it could lead to some awkward questions: ‘So, why can’t I see your Holiday Bash 2010 video…?’” While this issue may seem relatively innocuous, it demonstrates the reality that Facebook can’t catch all glitches, and that your Facebook data is never truly secure without additional protections.
As facial recognition technology moves from the realm of science-fiction to reality, privacy advocates are petitioning for close regulation of the facial recognition tools. This article from The Globe and Mail discusses how quickly facial recognition technology has evolved and why it may be a threat to individual privacy. It also features an excellent quote from Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who says of Facebook, “I think it’s appalling. It is very sensitive information, and to rely on ‘Trust us, we’re Facebook’ – they’re asking too much.”
July 12th, 2011 | Facebook, Google, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Research, Social Networking | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we share an interesting study from Carnegie-Mellon University, talk about Google+ privacy issues, and how Facebook doesn’t really want you to be social.
–
Many researchers assume that online shoppers are just looking for the best deal. But a new study from Carnegie-Mellon University reveals that privacy is even more important than price. In the study, participants were tasked with purchasing products from websites rated high and low for privacy protections. Quoting TGDaily, “when shopping online for batteries, study participants were happy to pay 59 cents more of their own money for batteries that came from such a website.They made significantly more purchases from sites rated ‘high privacy’ (47.4 percent) than those rated ‘no privacy’ (5.6 percent).” This finding clearly demonstrates that online privacy is important to consumers.
Facebook wants its users to share information, but only if they share it on Facebook. CNET reports that the company recently shut down a second application that allowed Facebook users to export their contacts to the new Google+ social network. Obviously, Facebook is just protecting its turf from a new competitor, but the irony of Facebook hoarding people’s data while the company claims it wants the world to share and be connected is pretty rich.
With Facebook’s recent messaging change, the company has overhauled its message inbox. Unlike the previous iteration of the inbox, which listed messages independently in the same way that e-mail does, the new system includes every message ever shared between the two users. The problem with this, as Bridget Carey points out in her Netiquette column, is that if you’ve ever had an awkward exchange with someone on Facebook, you’re continually reminded of it when you try and message them again.
Carey writes, “This is a wakeup call for anyone who depends on Facebook for messaging professional contacts. You’re better off sticking with a traditional email if you don’t want an awkward message to linger. (Deleting a message will only eliminate it from your view.) And if you do get a message via Facebook, it’s all the more important to respond.”
According to The Telegraph, “the [UK] Nursing and Midwifery Council has told health workers not to put sensitive information or photographs relating to their jobs on social networking websites, and to keep their professional and personal lives separate on the internet.” The advice comes as more and more nurses are asking the organization for clarification on what they can and can’t do online. Prof Dickon Weir-Hughes, chief executive of the NMC, said in a statement, “The NMC is committed to public protection and ensuring nurses and midwives make the welfare of those in their care their first priority at all times. “I would advise nurses and midwives to exercise caution when using social networking sites. They could risk their registration if they share sensitive information, make inappropriate comments, or befriend patients online.”
In an interesting article for ZDNet, Michael Krigsman writes about Google+’s privacy policy and how its vagueness could spell trouble for users. Krigsman takes particular exception with a line that gives Google intellectual property rights to anything users share. Quoting the article, “On the surface, it seems rather innocuous, intended merely to give Google permission to transmit your data across various networks onto all sorts of mobile devices. However, Google demands extremely broad rights from users. Under what circumstances would you sign a contract giving someone such free range with your intellectual property?”
July 6th, 2011 | Facebook, Google, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Privacy, Quick Hits, Social Networking | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, a former prison guard may end up in prison himself after impersonating his boss, Google+ runs into some privacy issues, and a link to live coverage of Facebook’s highly anticipated afternoon press conference.
–
A former prison guard may be spending time behind the very bars he used to protect if prosecutors successfully convict him of impersonating a public officer. The guard, who pretended to be his boss in a mocking Facebook profile, was arrested in December and originally charged with “use of fraudulent information.” This new charge carries a possible one-year prison term, demonstrating the serious stand that prosecutors around the country are taking against Internet impersonation.
The MIT Technology Review has an article (subscription required) on the rise of social networking companies and how they are now challenging the dominance of search engines in cataloguing and disseminating information. However, before social media websites can fully take over the Web, they must figure out a way to deal with the privacy problems that plague their services without damaging their bread and butter – personalized advertising.
Last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised to unveil “something awesome” at an upcoming press conference. The announcement, widely acknowledged as a response to Google’s recent rollout of Google+, will happen today at 1:00pm ET. PCMag.com is going to be at Facebook headquarters today for the company’s press conference and will host a live chat during the announcement.
Google has come out of the gate strong with its new social network, Google+, but the company has run into several privacy issues that could keep Google+ from catching on with a wider audience. This article from PCWorld discusses some of the problems with Google+, including issues with blocking users.
In a move designed to help push its new social network, Google+, Google is forcing all Google users to make their Google accounts public by July 31st. Using very Facebook-like language, a Google spokesperson said in a statement, “We believe that using Google Profiles to help people find and connect with you online is how the product is best used. Private profiles don’t allow this, so we have decided to require all profiles to be public.” Any profiles that remain private after July 31st will be deleted. At the minimum, users will be required to share their full name and gender.
June 29th, 2011 | Facebook, Google, Legal Issues, Online Reputation Management, Parenting, Privacy, Quick Hits, Social Networking, Student Online Reputation | Rob Frappier
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about the Google+ Project and delve into the lives of Australia’s hard-partying, Facebook-sharing teens.
–
Yesterday, Google rolled out its long-awaited social networking feature, the Google+ Project. Initially, only a handful of people were given access to Google+. The folks at Business Insider were among the early users, and they have broken down the entire Google+ Project into 29 slides. If you’re still waiting to check out Google+ for yourself, Business Insider’s tour is a great way to learn more about the product.
One thing that Google has been getting high marks on with Google+ is the company’s deference for user privacy. In an article for CNET, Declan McCullagh writes that Google+’s “Circles” feature makes it easier to group your friends and selectively publish online content. McCullagh also notes that Google+ also has significantly fewer privacy settings, making it easier for users to customize their Google+ accounts than their Facebook accounts.
Two years after a New York man left a violent, Fight Club-inspired Facebook rant against an Apple store, a judge has decided to throw out the charges against him. On his Facebook page, the man wrote he “might walk into an Apple store on Fifth Avenue with an Armalite AR-10 gas powered semi-automatic weapon and pump round after round into one of those smug, fruity little concierges,” which is nearly identical to a similar line in the book Fight Club. This incident highlights how one individual’s online content can be misconstrued and cause significant reputation problems.
This article in the Sydney Morning Herald offers a disturbing glimpse into the wild, alcohol-fueled lives of Australia’s 17 and 18-year-old teen girls. While the article goes into a wide range of issues surrounding this hard-partying set, one element of the story is worth highlighting. According to the Herald article, these girls not only party, but document every moment of the party to share on Facebook the following day, with no regard for the reputation consequences.
Quoting Gordian Fulde, the director of emergency medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, from the article: “And these days, if a girl goes out and gets trashed and vomits, maybe even ends up in emergency, they freak out at the time but you can see that they’re getting a badge of honour. The next day the photos will go up on Facebook.” Setting aside the many health risks of binge drinking, this “badge of honor” can quickly become a scarlet letter for these girls as they move on to college or into the adult workforce.
According to the MIT Tech Review, via Forbes privacy blogger Kashmir Hill, “if you’re not making efforts to anonymize your Web browsing, you may be leaking information to your competitors when visiting their websites.” Kashmir goes on to describe how businesses can track and log IP addresses to their websites and determine who is visiting and from what company. In a highly competitive market, it could be damaging if a competitor learned that you were investigating a specific product or service through your unfiltered IP address.
