ImaginativePRO Blog

MOST PARENTS NOW SNOOP ON THEIR CHILDREN'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITIES

Call it “monitoring,” “checking up,” “keeping tabs on,” or whatever other generous euphemism you prefer, but most parents -- over three quarters, in fact -- are snooping around their teenage children’s social media profiles, according to a new survey by online coupon purveyor  vouchercloud.net. This probably comes as a surprise to approximately nobody. But for those of you wondering about the ethical ramifications, it may be comforting to learn that just 12% of parents feel guilty about conducting social media surveillance. Embrace your inner snoops, people!

Asked about their motives for monitoring their teens’ social media activity:

• 85% of parents surveyed said they wanted to learn more about their children’s lives.
• 83% said they worried that their children might be posting inappropriate content online.

Matthew Wood, the managing editor of vouchercloud.net, explained:

“Snooping may get a bad reputation, but essentially many teenagers don’t want to talk to their parents about their online activity, so a lot of the time parents don’t have much of a choice.”

No question, parents have plenty of reasons to keep tabs on their kids’ social media usage. Earlier this year a survey by Cox Communications and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children found:  

• 31% of teens reported being the victim of online bullying.
• 41% of these have told an adult.

The survey's other findings weren’t any more likely to assuage parental anxiety:

• 73% said they had shared personal information or potentially inappropriate content online.
• 73% said they had shared potentially inappropriate photos online.
• 21% said they had shared their phone number.
• 21% said they used curse words online.
• 19% disclosed their physical location online.
• 12% disclosed their home address online.
• 5% made sexual comments or posted sexually-oriented pictures.

A separate survey of British teens found:

• 21% had posted negative comments.
• 26% said they had hijacked someone else’s account to post damaging content.
• 43% said they had exchanged messages with strangers.

On the other side, teens are fully aware that their parents may be snooping, and adopt various countermeasures, according to a 2012 survey by McAfee:

• 71% of teens said they hide their online activity from their parents.
• 56% of parents were aware of this.
• 53.3% of teens said they clear their browser history.
• 45.9% minimize browsers when their parents are around.
• 18.9% delete inappropriate videos.
• 19.9% manipulate privacy settings to block their parents.

Meanwhile continuing shifts in social media usage patterns will make it harder for parents to keep up. A recent survey from Project Tomorrow, a non-profit organization focused on digital technology for education, confirmed that teenagers are leaving social networks like Facebook in favor of social apps. In their survey of 2013 they found:  

• 30% of middle school students said they are maintaining a profile on a social network site.
• 39% of high school students said they are maintaining a profile on a social networking site, down 40% from 2009.
• The drop in social network use has been accompanied by a rise in social apps like Instagram, Snapchat, and Vine, which are now used by 44% of students in grades 6-12.

COMMENTARY:    According to an earlier study by Education Database Online conducted in 2013, it was found that nearly half of all parents using Facebook have joined to spy on their kids.43 percent of parents check their child’s Facebook profile daily. The study also discovered that 31 percent of parents check their kids account four to five times per week.

Not all parents pry as often, 14 percent of Facebook using parents reported only “sporadically” checking out their kids pages and 11 percent said they check their kids out on Facebook once a month.

One percent of parents using Facebook say they never check out their child’s Facebook profile.

The study also found that 41 percent of parents are most interested in status updates, while 39 percent care about what other people post on their kids wall. 29 percent of Facebook spying parents are most interested in the photos their kids are tagged in.

With approximately 17.5 million Facebook users believed to be under the age of 13 the number of Facebook spying parents is only likely to increase.

Here is the full Education Database Online study in infographic form:

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated April 29, 2014 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf and an article dated February 13 2013 appearing in Social News Daily

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PRISM: A CHEAT SHEET FOR THE NSA'S UNPRECEDENTED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

Since September 11th, 2001, the United States government has dramatically increased the ability of its intelligence agencies to collect and investigate information on both foreign subjects and US citizens. Some of these surveillance programs, including a secret program called PRISM, capture the private data of citizens who are not suspected of any connection to terrorism or any wrongdoing.

In June, a private contractor working for Booz Allen Hamilton leaked classified presentation slides that detailed the existence and the operations of PRISM: a mechanism that allows the government to collect user data from companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, and others. While much of the program — and the rest of the NSA’s surveillance efforts — are still shrouded in secrecy, more details are coming to light as the public, as well as its advocates and representatives, pressure the government to come clean about domestic spying.

The What

What the hell is PRISM? PRISM is a tool used by the US National Security Agency (NSA) to collect private electronic data belonging to users of major internet services like Gmail, Facebook, Outlook, and others. It’s the latest evolution of the US government’s post-9/11 electronic surveillance efforts, which began under President Bush with the Patriot Act, and expanded to include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted in 2006 and 2007.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about how PRISM works, but the basic idea is that it allows the NSA to request data on specific people from major technology companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and others. The US government insists that it is only allowed to collect data when given permission by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Why is PRISM a big deal?

Classified presentation slides detailing aspects of PRISM were leaked by a former NSA contractor. On June 6th, The Guardian and The Washington Post published reports based on the leaked slides, which state that the NSA has “direct access” to the servers of Google, Facebook, and others. In the days since the leak, the implicated companies have vehemently denied knowledge of and participation in PRISM, and have rejected allegations that the US government is able to directly tap into their users' data.

Both the companies and the government insist that data is only collected with court approval and for specific targets. As The Washington Post reported, PRISM is said to merely be a streamlined system — varying between companies — that allows them to expedite court-approved data collection requests. Because there are few technical details about how PRISM operates, and because of the fact that the FISA court operates in secret, critics are concerned about the extent of the program and whether it violates the constitutional rights of US citizens.

CRITICS HAVE QUESTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PRISM

Click Image To Enlarge

How was PRISM created?

As The Washington Post reported, The Protect America Act of 2007 led to the creation of a secret NSA program called US-984XN — also known as PRISM. The program is said to be a streamlined version of the same surveillance practices that the US was conducting in the years following 9/11, under President George W. Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”

The Protect America Act allows the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to explain in a classified document how the US will collect intelligence on foreigners overseas each year, but does not require specific targets or places to be named. As the Post reports, once the plan is approved by a federal judge in a secret order, the NSA can require companies like Google and Facebook to send data to the government, as long as the requests meet the classified plan's criteria.

Click Image To Enlarge

Who is responsible for leaking PRISM?

Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old intelligence contractor formerly employed by the NSA, CIA, and Booz Allen Hamilton, confessed responsibility for leaking the PRISM documents. He revealed himself on June 9th, three days after reports on PRISM were published; in an interview with The Guardian, Snowden said, “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things,” and claimed he was motivated by civic duty to leak classified information.

Edward Snowden an NSA, CIA and Booz Allen Hamilton intelligence contractor leaked information about the NSA's PRISM surveillance system.  Snowden fled the U.S. and is now in Moscow, Russia via Hong Kong waiting for a permanent safe haven (Click Image To Enlarge)

Snowden left the United States prior to leaking the documents in order to avoid capture, taking refuge in Hong Kong — where he stayed until June 23rd. With the assistance of WikiLeaks, Snowden fled Hong Kong for Moscow, and has requested asylum in Ecuador, Russia, and other countries. He is still residing in a Moscow airport, waiting to be granted asylum.

Surveillance systems like this one are located in cities throughout the U.S. (Click Image To Enlarge)

What does the NSA collect?

While PRISM has been the most talked-about story to come out of Snowden’s leaks, the disclosures have shed light on a vast array of NSA surveillance programs. Broadly speaking, these can be split into two categories: “upstream” wiretaps, which pull data directly from undersea telecommunications cables, and efforts like PRISM, which acquire communications from US service providers. One of the slides in the leaked PRISM presentation instructs that analysts “should use both” of these sources.

NSA programs collect two kinds of data: metadata and content. Metadata is the sensitive byproduct of communications, such as phone records that reveal the participants, times, and durations of calls; the communications collected by PRISM include the contents of emails, chats, VoIP calls, cloud-stored files, and more. US officials have tried to allay fears about the NSA’s indiscriminate metadata collection by pointing out that it doesn’t reveal the contents of conversations. But metadata can be just as revealing as content — internet metadata includes information such as email logs, geolocation data (IP addresses), and web search histories. Because of a decades-old law, metadata is also far less well-protected than content in the US.

NSA Programs Collect Two Kinds of Data:  Metadata and Content  

A leaked court order provided by Snowden showed that Verizon is handing over the calling records and telephony metadata of all its customers to the NSA on an “ongoing, daily basis.” Mass collection of internet metadata began under a Bush-era program called "Stellarwind," which was first revealed by NSA whistleblower William Binney. The program was continued for two years under the Obama administration, but has since been discontinued and replaced with a host of similar programs with names like “EvilOlive” and “ShellTrumpet.”

Click Image To Enlarge

How does the NSA collect data?

Many crucial details on how and under what circumstances the NSA collects data are still missing. Legally speaking, surveillance programs rely on two key statutes, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) and Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The former authorizes the collection of communications content under PRISM and other programs, while the latter authorizes the collection of metadata from phone companies such as Verizon and AT&T. However, multiple reports and leaked documents indicate the statutes have been interpreted in secret by the FISA intelligence courts to grant much broader authority than they were originally written to allow. They also indicate that the FISA courts only approve the NSA’s collection procedures, and individual warrants for specific targets are not required.

An analyst starts by inputting “selectors” (search terms) into a system like PRISM, which then “tasks” information from other collection sites, known as SIGADs (Signals Intelligence Activity Designators). SIGADs have both classified and unclassified code names, and are tasked for different types of data — one called NUCLEON gathers the contents of phone conversations, while others like MARINA store internet metadata.

Leaked documents show that under the agency’s targeting and “minimization” rules, NSA analysts can not specifically target someone “reasonably believed” to be a US person communicating on US soil. According to The Washington Post, an analyst must have at least “51 percent” certainty their target is foreign. But even then, the NSA’s “contact chaining” practices — whereby an analyst collects records on a target’s contacts, and their contacts’ contacts — can easily cause Americans to be caught up in the process.

The rules state the analyst must take steps to remove data that is determined to be from “US persons,” but even if they are not relevant to terrorism or national security, these “inadvertently acquired” communications can still be retained and analyzed for up to five years — and even given to the FBI or CIA — under a broad set of circumstances. Those include communications that are "reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed," or that contain information relevant to arms proliferation or cybersecurity. If communications are encrypted, they can be kept indefinitely.

NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland (Click Image To Enlarge)

So, what now?

In the weeks since the PRISM documents leaked, a widespread international public debate about the United States government’s surveillance and spying programs has engulfed the NSA, Congress, and the Obama administration in controversy. While outspoken supporters of NSA surveillance in Congress and the White House —including President Obama — have defended the legality and necessity of the programs, some US lawmakers are pushing back. In June, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a bill that aims to rein in the problematic legal provisions that give US intelligence agencies nearly unfettered authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on domestic and foreign communications. Several other lawmakers have introduced their own measures, but legislative reform is still in early stages.

Meanwhile, a diverse coalition of interest groups and private organizations are directly challenging some of the NSA’s surveillance programs in court. On July 16th, a broad coalition of plaintiffs sued the US government for “an illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet electronic surveillance,” in which the NSA scoops up all telephone records handled by Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint in the US. Separate suits brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union are also in the works, but the government hasn’t responded to the allegations in court yet.

The companies at the heart of PRISM’s controversy are also acting out, but the specific details regarding their involvement in government surveillance on US citizens is still unclear. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others have stepped up pressure on the government in the past month to declassify the process which compels them to hand over user data to the government. In an impassioned plea made by Microsoft on July 16th, the company’s general counsel Brad Smith said: “We believe the US constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, yet the government is stopping us.”

Finally, there’s the group of people most affected by PRISM and its sibling programs: the American public. On July 4th, “Restore the Fourth” rallies in more than 100 US cities protested the government’s surveillance programs, focusing on electronic privacy. It’s not clear if public outrage will result in reform, but thanks to the dramatic actions of a young intelligence contractor, we now at least have the opportunity to discuss what the US government has been hiding from the public in the name of national security.

COMMENTARY:  In a blog post dated April 28, 2011, I told my readers about the National Security Agency (NSA), and what goes on inside that super-secret agency.  For a long time, the U.S. government told Americans there was "No Such Agency," and that it would never use the NSA's intelligence gathering capabilities to spy on and gather information about Americans. However, along came the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Center, and over 3,000 Americans died -- the worst death toll on America since the attack on the U.S. Navy fleet in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 by the Japanese.  

Click Image To Enlarge

A lot has happened since 9/11.  Shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center,  George W. Bush formed the Department of Homeland Security and signed into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which allowed the federal government unprecedented powers to protect Americans against terrorist attacks and gather intelligence on terrorists and "persons of interest," including unwary innocent Americans.  

The act, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, significantly weakened restrictions on law enforcement agencies' gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

Click Image To Enlarge

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 1.

Click Image To Enlarge

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.

The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.

The Role of Social Networks In National Security

Click Image To Enlarge

In a blog post dated January 26, 2012, I told my readers about the FBI's plans to develop a social network monitoring system to track our social media activities.   Internet users already post a huge amount of personal and private information about themselves online, especially on their social network profile pages.  For the Department of Homeland Security tapping into the the vast amount of information available on social networks was a no-brainer  

The Central Intelligence Agency has also joined the FBI in tapping into the huge amount of data we post on social networks.  In a blog post dated January 26, 2012,  I told readers that Facebook was basically a front for the CIA.   Can there be any doubt?  If you are still skeptical, checkout this video and listen to what CIA Deputy Director Christopher Sartinsky had to say about the value of Facebook to the CIA before a Senate national security subcommittee.   

Click To View Video

In January 2012, Facebook appointed Erskine Bowles, president emeritus of the University of North Carolina and a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, to its board of directors.  Mr. Bowles replaced former Clinton Chief of Staff Daniel Pineta, when President Clinton appointed Pineta as CIA Director.  Pineta later served as CIA Director under George Bush and briefly under President Barack Obama.  If there is any doubt that the CIA has tightened its grip around Facebook, just look at this picture.    That's right, it's President Obama reminding Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is the boss.

Facebook CEO and Co-Founder hopnobs with President Barack Obama at a dinner of Silicon Valley executives during his second term campaign (Click Image To Enlarge)

Courtesy of an article dated July 17, 2013 appearing in The Verge  

 

DOES GOOGLE GLASS HAVE A BRANDING PROBLEM? MARKETING EXPERTS MAP STEPS TO MAINSTREAM SUCCESS

Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin wears a pair of Google Glass AR glasses (Click Image To Enlarge)

Still in its test phase, Google Glass may be dorked to death before it gets the opportunity to take off. Here, marketing players from a range of agencies provide their assessment of Glass’s chances and some suggestions for paving the way to mainstream success.

Google’s much-hyped wearable computer, Google Glass, has been touted by the tech elite as one of the leaps forward of recent times, but those same elites may hobble mainstream adoption of the device.

While privacy concerns have blossomed (the device may be on its way to being banned at a number of locations), it may comfort those worried that we are all about to become spies for Google that the early adopters of Google Glass are helping to give it an image problem it might not recover from.

Technology venture capitalists Marc Andreessen, Bill Maris and John Doerr model Google Glass AR glasses (Click Image To Enlarge)

Marc Andreessen, a partner in the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, said, 

”You put it on and you’re like ‘Oh my God, I have the entire Internet in my vision. Where have you been all my life?’ ”

Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist John Doerr noted last month when unveiling Kleiner Perkins’ Google Glass-focused investment fund. 

"For paraplegics and quadriplegics, Glass could be a stunningly useful way to get information and interact with it."

The futuristic-looking headset can augment our everyday reality by putting data in our field of vision as well as allowing us to take pictures, and translating the spoken word on the move. But unfortunately, it also appears to have unintended contraceptive powers, as illustrated by this Tumblr featuring members of its decidedly unhip core fanbase.

Google CEO & Co-Founder Larry Page wears a pair of Google Glass AR glasses (Click Image To Enlarge)

It’s all very well having wearable technology that lets you livestream yourself hang gliding. But if it has all the sex appeal of orthodontic headgear, it’s unlikely to catch on. Google’s Glass Explorer program has put Google Glass in the hands and on the heads of developers and tech pundits who Google has selected to test it and have paid $1,500. Google chief executive Larry Page has indicated that the product won’t be in stores for about another year, by which time it may be hard to separate it from its association with tech fanatics.

Arguably, success in wearable technology hinges on making people look and feel good as much as providing a functional service. Developers might be happy to fork vast sums for the privilege of being a Google Glass owner, but when the product goes to mass market, fashion, or at least some sort of coolness and covetability will be as critical as functionality.

Tech pundit Robert Scoble wrote a glowing review about the augmented reality glasses and said, "I will never live a day without them." He then showed off a picture of himself showering while wearing the glasses.  Google co-founder Sergey Brin looking cool wearing a pair of Google Glass AR glasses onboard a bus (Click Image To Enlarge)

With this in mind, we asked five marketing experts: How would you position Google Glass to make sure it achieves mainstream success?

AFTER NAILING THE EARLY ADOPTERS, FOCUS ON LESS-EXPECTED APPLICATIONS.

Jinal Shah, digital strategy director, JWT New York

Google is embracing its influencers. Make no mistake though--they aren’t just going after the nerds. They are strategic in who they’ve invited to their Glass Explorers program, an influencer program that allows a handpicked group to use the first generation of Google Glass. Google has carefully curated a group of people who sit at the intersection of nerd and celebrity. For example, tech celebrity Soraya Darabi, among others. People like her not only bring their passion for technology but also their massive audiences (500K+ followers in the case of Soraya) into the conversation.

California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, and former mayor of San Francisco, tries the glasses on Current TV (Click Image To Enlarge)

There’s incremental innovation and there’s wow-your-pants-off innovation. Google Glass is in the latter category. We tried it on last week at Google and it was pretty amazing. Mainstream success will happen as it expands the breadth of its audience and also as its simplifies its technology. What we’ll end up with in a few years is just a tiny camera that we’ll be able to attach to any eyewear. To the broader point, wearable technology is the future. Making it as nerdy as possible at the outset is a smart strategic move to get those who will engage most with the glasses to develop their capabilities and advance them to a place of general adoption. It should be no surprise that Google has already developed a partnership with Warby Parker. The aesthetic will change over time, and this will be one of the many norms of wearable tech.

The Google Glass initial approach has focused on driving exclusivity in select communities. And they’ve nailed it. In the next stage, I’d focus on creating desire by introducing a library of plain interesting to bizarre applications of Glass. Think government, music, Hollywood, retail partnerships--maybe even an episode of Family Guy with Stewie touting Glass.

THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT NERDS.

Jonah Disend, CEO and Founder of Redscout

When we look at the challenge of extending Google Glasses out of nerdom, we believe that the challenge is first, one of execution and second, one of positioning and targeting.

• First, in terms of execution, Google Glasses inherently plays in two worlds--fashion and technology--and they haven’t created “cool kid” lust in either area.  It is neither an incredible fashion accessory that you would want to wear, nor is it a beautiful or obviously useful gadget that you would want to own.
• Second, in terms of positioning and targeting, today Google Glasses is seen as a barrier to social engagement as opposed to an enabler. While it may make your world more exciting and dynamic (as the promotional video might suggest), it does not currently enhance socialization nor have they shown how the value of the glasses increases with additional users (there is currently no clear Network Effect).

Now for our gross generalization about nerds versus everyone else. Nerds actively look to create barriers to protect them from the world, mitigate social engagement, and connect through virtual worlds (thinkWorld of Warcraft). In this context, Google Glasses are the ultimate tool for nerds to add a layer of protection between them and others and potentially seal the fate of Google Glasses as something that only the geekiest of the geeks would ever want to wear (or even own).

WORK WITH TRENDSETTERS.

Lloyd Salmons, Director of Digital, Saatchi & Saatchi London

I love Google. It gives me convenient access to a world of information and that’s something I want. I don’t love their glasses, because they don’t give me what I want. What I want is my glasses. If you’ve ever chosen a pair of glasses you’ll know how long it takes, how many opinions you seek, how many photos you’ve texted and images of celebrities you’ve looked at, be they fashion, sport or sunglasses. What I want is the Google I love, in the glasses I love. I want Google in my glasses.

Open APIs, products as platforms, and cocreation are the norm for tech companies. There is no way Apple or Android could have brought the level of innovation needed to create so many apps personalized to individual needs. Just because Google Glass is a physical product doesn’t mean Google should change the approach to creating the range of glasses needed to facilitate individual tastes.

To facilitate this, we’d build a platform allowing us to work with a range of individuals and the people who make their glasses. These people would range from well-known celebrities in fashion and sport, to everyday style leaders. The content generated across the journey from inception, build, and trial to launch would provide both broadcast content and ways to engage.

Google in Bradley Wiggins’s glasses: We follow the journey of Bradley and his glasses climaxing at the start of the Tour de France. Google in Elton John’s glasses: No one has more glasses than Elton John; he’s given us a hundred of his best to create a range of Google glasses and we’re going to find the perfect person for each of them. You get the picture. Google in P.Diddy’s glasses. Google in Sven Göran Eriksson’s glasses. Google in Victoria Beckham’s sunglasses.

If you try on anyone else’s glasses, you look like a nerd; that’s just a law of the universe. If you don’t believe me, try it. What I need is Google in my glasses.

IDENTIFY AND EMBRACE THE USAGE SWEET SPOT.

Brian Carley, SVP, Executive Creative Director, Rokkan

It’s a challenge, specifically because of the stigma that was quickly attached to them. Putting aside all flaws in its physical appearance, it would be ideal to tap into how people would realistically use them day to day. Very few people are going be wearing them ALL the time, but there are times when it would be useful to have a device such as this and also have complete use of your hands. We all assume that our mobile devices have no boundaries, but there are instances when we are apprehensive about having them on our person. I think that utilizing those moments is the sweet spot for this product. It’s a more useful Go-Pro and those are wildly popular within their specific usage, which is quite broad. There’s no real need for these beyond enjoyment, and so it would be wise to illustrate the truly hands-free experiences that surround the product beyond the dorkiness we’ve experienced already. At least they’re not as cumbersome as a Segway.

DON’T CHANGE A THING.

Bud Caddell, SVP, Director of Invention and Digital Strategy, Deutsch LA

Yes, white middle-aged men love Google Glass. Is it a problem? Of course not. Wearable tech has hardly fallen down Geoffrey Moore’s chasm. We’re seeing early adoption, and in tech (if we’re not counting Pinterest), white men from the Valley with disposable income tend to be first in, first out. And that didn’t stop iPads, laptops, or the mobile phone from reaching mass adoption. Yes, Robert Scoble in the shower is frightening. But take a breath. Google has already tapped Warby Parker, who I personally trust in putting things on my face, and I think Google Glass (in one iteration or another) is here to stay.

COMMENTARY:    

What Tech Guru's Are Saying About Google Glass

I am discounting by about 95% the positive comments made by most of the above technology pundits, expecially some of the above VC's in favor of what other technology pundits are saying:

Marcus Wohlsen, a tech reporter for Wired, on May 2, 2013, gave some hints that Google Glass could end in failure by making these comparisons: 

“The Segway. The Bluetooth headset. The pocket protector.”  

Rebecca Greenfield of The Atlantic, called the secret photo-taking application a “privacy nightmare,” and she also said:

“The Creepiest Google Glass App Is a Stalker’s Dream.” 

Jason Perlow of ZDNet wrote:

“Google Glass: Let the evil commence."   

Perlow also noted that in the “Explorer” version of Google Glass that shipped in early May to first generation of users,

"There is no recording LED indicator light on the device, so that one could stealthily record without any indication to the subject that they are being captured on-camera.”

Jason Zada, an award winning director, wrote on Twitter.  

 ”White Men Wearing Google Glass. This doesn’t make me want a pair.”

Another person simply wrote that Google Glass looks “lame.”

The Google Glass Is Banned List Grows

Privacy and security have become major concerns and as the list of concerned protesters continues to grow, we began to wonder: Where will we be most likely to see this Glass resistance moving forward?  This is a short list of businesses and places who will ban Google Glass:

• Movie theaters and concert venues - It's interesting to consider what Glass could do for film piracy and that annoying guy in front of you who waved his phone snapping photos through an entire two-hours concert. But these are two of the most obvious examples of places that traditionally prohibit cameras.
• Public schools - Or nurseries, or playgrounds. Really, anywhere with an influx of children is going to be a potential hotbed of legal headaches.
• Behind the wheel - The West Virginia legislators' attempt to ban Glass while driving will inevitably gain favor within other states, which will likely include many of the country's 39 states and Washington, D.C., where texting while driving is prohibited.
• Hospitals - Hospitals house boatloads of some of our most personal data, including medical records and insurance information. A stray paper or tilted clipboard could easily find its way into a Glass photo.
• Banks and ATMs - Similar to the hospital example, it's not unfathomable to imagine a Glass-clad someone hovering a little too close to your left shoulder to peep a glance at (not to mention a photo of) your credit card.
• Dressing rooms, locker rooms, and other rooms with people who are potentially naked - Think everywhere from department stores to your gym to strip clubs.

I might also add to the above list:

• Law enforcement - The police will absolutely hate Google Glass.  They don't want you recording their every move and what they say, because this could be used against them in court.
• Courts rooms - Court rooms often ban photographers from their court rooms, especially high-profile and controversial cases.  This is often necessary in order to protect the identity of the jurors and individuals making testimony.  
• Military bases - Any military personnel on military bases who enter or work in highly classified and secured areas will definitely be banned from wearing Google Glass. 
• Schools and colleges - Google Glass will definitely be banned from the classroom. Instructors will be weary of students who might use Google Glass to teach on tests.

On the other hand, I can definitely see immigration inspectors, airline security, law enforcement and even retailing establishments benefiting from Google Glass, in helping them identify criminals, security risks, people of interest and shoplifters before they commit crimes. Companies that want to protect their valuable intellectual property as a matter of practice will ban Google Glass.    

In my opinion, any technology that raises the high level of privacy and security concerns and could lead to consumer litigation potentially in the billions, has a huge PR image and this has the ability to permanently damage or destroy a brand.  This is what I see happening with Google Glass.  If Google wants to market Google Glass to the masses, they will have to severely limit or block its use in certain situations.  

Google needs to be careful that it does not damage its own brand reputation as the company whose motto is: "Don't Be Evil."   Google Glass has the potential to turn Google into the feared "Big Brother,"  that Steve Jobs warned us about when he tried to portray IBM as "Big Brother" in the famous TV commercial.  The company has to be very careful how they launch Google Glass. The company has a social responsibility to uphold (its motto) and it should not take us for granted.   The small cadre of tech geeks and very early adopters who now love and applaud Google Glass as the next big thing, may later learn to hate if they are not too careful.

I keep hearing that Google Glass represents the next evolution of the social network. Bringing the social network experience into the real world and sharing what we see and do with others.  Is this what Google (and Facebook) really wants?  God help us if this is where social networks are headed.  I don't want that kind of "social media experience" biting me in the butt, and I am sure you don't either.   Left to its own accord, without any controls, I believe that Google Glass crosses a line in the sand where our privacy is not only violated, but completely destroyed.  We lose our individuality as human beings, and we become an open book to anyone and everyone.

So keep in mind the old adage: "What goes around, comes around."       

Courtesy of an article dated May 15, 2013 appearing in Fast Company, an article dated May 4, 2013 appearing in CNN Tech, and an article date May 3, 2013 appearing in The New York Times Bits and an article dated May 15, 2013 appearing in VentureBeat

 

A CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STUDY SAYS YOUR FACEBOOK 'LIKES' CAN ACCURATELY REVEAL YOUR PERSONALITY

A Cambridge University says your Facebook 'LIKES' can reveal your true personality 

A study conducted by Cambridge University researchers was able to correctly deduce a user’s IQ, race, sexuality, drug use, political views or personality traits only using a record of the subjects, people and brands a person had liked on Facebook, even if not publically visible.

A study of 58,000 U.S. Facebook users, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, arises from an emerging discipline in which experts sift through extremely large digital data sets, such as collections of web searches or Twitter messages, for subtle patterns and relationships. It highlights the power and risks of digital demographics, which are the key to targeted online advertising, experts said.

 

Researchers can accurately and automatically predict sensitive personal traits of people on Facebook by analyzing the patterns of "Likes." Robert Lee Hotz reports on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

Psychologist Michal Kosinski who led the U.K.'s Cambridge University study said.

"People who share the 'Likes' do not realize that they are sharing very private issues as well.  The predictions based on 'Likes' are very fine-tuned and very much on the personal level."

Facebook's billion users can click that they "Like" anything from a movie or a public figure to a comment a friend posts about his cat. There was a median number of 68 "Likes," which are readily accessible online, posted by the users in the study.

LIKE MINDS -- Facebook users' choices correlate strongly with some real-world characteristics - Courtesy of WSJ (Click Image To Enlarge)

For this study, the researchers used demographic profiles, behavioral questionnaires and psychological tests volunteered by the users and then correlated that with "Likes" the volunteers had posted on the social-networking site. They set up a program to see whether these patterns could predict personal information about a group of people in the database based solely on the patterns of "Likes."

'People who share the 'Likes' do not realize that they are sharing very private issues as well,' said psychologist Michal Kosinski at the U.K.'s Cambridge University, who led the study (Click Image To Enlarge)

While far from perfect, the record of Facebook "Likes" was in many ways as accurate as a personality test, researchers said.

The researchers found, for example, that "Likes" for Austin, Texas; "Big Momma" movies; and the statement "Relationships Should Be Between Two People Not the Whole Universe" were among a set of 10 choices that, combined, predicted drug use.  Meanwhile, "Likes" for swimming, chocolate-chip cookie-dough ice cream and "Sliding On Floors with Your Socks On" were part of a pattern predicting that a person didn't use drugs.

As a measure of the computer model's accuracy, the researchers were able to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans in 85% of the cases; between black and white people in 95% of the cases; and between homosexual and heterosexual men in 88% of the cases.

Jeffrey Chester, a privacy activist at the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit group that lobbies on media and telecommunications issues, said.  

"This study should set off privacy alarm bells."

Michael Konsinski, the lead Cambridge University analyst working with Microsoft Research for the study, explained. 

“The important point is that, on one hand, it is good that people’s behaviour is predictable because it means Facebook can suggest very good stories on your news feed.  But what is shocking is that you can predict your political views or your sexual orientation. This is something most people don’t realise you can do.”

The computer software used to predict the traits could be used by anyone with training in data analysis, meaning that the same information could be collected by more dangerous organisations. 

Konsinski added.

“Everyone carries around their Facebook ‘likes’, their browsing history and their search history, trusting corporations that it will be used to predict their movies or music tastes. But if you ask about governments, I am not sure people would like them to predict things like religion or sexuality, especially in less peaceful or illiberal countries.”

The findings could reignite concerns about how much private data can be collected by governments and private companies, especially via seemingly innocuous Facebook likes and online habits. 

Facebook Inc. public-policy manager Fred Wolens said the ability to use public "Likes" to profile its users is "hardly surprising." Marketers and social scientists have long used online information, from ZIP Codes to musical tastes, to predict personal characteristics, he said.

Even so, many people who consent to sharing data online don't realize the additional intimate details that researchers can glean from it, said Helen Nissenbaum, director of the Information Law Institute at New York University, who wasn't involved in the study.

She said.

"When people today agree to volunteer information, they have no idea what can be inferred from that information." 

COMMENTARY:   This is another good reason why I never click the 'LIKE' button for anything. If I have to click the 'LIKE' button just to access an article, I decline and move on. Besides, why do I need to like something before I even read or see it?  

Revelations that your 'LIKES' on Facebook could reveal your true personality, could become a bonanza for marketers, so you know that they are reading that study end-to-end to see what other things they can learn about Facebook users, to fine tune their advertising.

Privacy is always going to be an issue with all social networks.  Everyone should become intimately familiar with the terms and conditions contained in Facebook's Terms of Use Agreement and Data Use Policy in order to protect themselves against privacy violations and missuse of your private information by third-party individuals, companies and marketing firms.

In Facebook's Data Use Policy you will find that Facebook receives a lot of information about you from numerous sources:  

• Your clicks on Facebook
• Your searches on Facebook
• Your messages on Facebook 
• Your computer and mobile devices
• From Facebook games and apps you use
• From data received from Facebook's affiliates and advertising partners.     

Facebook can obtain the following information from your computer and mobile devices:

• Your IP address
• Your internet service
• Your location 
• Type (including identifiers) of browser you use.
• Pages you visit.  

For example, Facebook may get your GPS or other location information so they can tell you if any of your friends are nearby.  

• When you connect with a game, application or website - such as by going to a game, logging in to a website using your Facebook account, or adding an app to your timeline - we give the game, application, or website (sometimes referred to as just "Applications" or "Apps") your basic info (we sometimes call this your "public profile"), which includes your User ID and your public information. We also give them your friends' User IDs (also called your friend list) as part of your basic info.
• Your friend list helps the application make your experience more social because it lets you find your friends on that application. Your User ID helps the application personalize your experience because it can connect your account on that application with your Facebook account, and it can access your basic info, which includes your public information and friend list. This includes the information you choose to make public, as well as information that is always publicly available. If the application needs additional information, such as your stories, photos or likes, it will have to ask you for specific permission.

As you can readily see, Facebook, including other social networks you may have joined, have a slew of information about you, which they in turn share with their affiliaites, partners and advertisers to market products and services to you whenever you are logged into Facebook.   All of this is going on seamlessly and stealthly, and you are not even aware of it.

The Cambridge University study only adds to the mountains of information Facebook has about you, and now adds an additional layer of privacy concerns that are sure to affect you in the foreseeable future. 

Want to know what your "LIKES" say about you?  Take this simple QUIZ put together by the folks at the WSJ by clicking HERE.

Courtesy of an article dated March 11, 2013 appearing in The Wall Street Journal and an article dated March 12, 2013 appearing in Trusted Reviews

THE AMAZING SPY GADGETS AND DEVICES EXHIBITED AT THE "SPY: THE SECRET WORLD OF ESPIONAGE" SHOW IN NEW YORK'S TIMES SQUARE

MEET “CHARLIE,” A ROBOT FISH DESIGNED TO TAKE WATER SAMPLES NEAR POWER PLANTS AND FACTORIES. HE’S JUST ONE OF THE GADGETS ON VIEW AT SPY: THE SECRET WORLD OF ESPIONAGE THIS FALL.

In pop culture these days, we only hear about spies if they’re starring in a movie, or if their leader is sleeping with his biographer. Which is maybe not surprising, given the sensitive nature of the job--but still, whence comes the fake-mustache-and-secret-recorder spy culture of yore?

 

Thanks largely to the ubiquity of digital devices, those classic, Bond-style gadgets we associate with spies have long been outmoded. But some of the most amazing can be seen this fall at Discovery Times Square (I guess that’s a thing?), where a show called Spy: The Secret World of Espionage is on view until next spring.

 

In trying to describe some of the objects on view in Spy, It’s tempting to play a game of “real spy gadget or made-up joke.” For example, the keystone of the exhibit is a robot fish named "Charlie,” built to swim in a fairly realistic impersonation of a live catfish. Amazingly, Charlie is only 12 years old--the CIA won’t reveal why he was built, but some speculate he’s intended to collect water samples around nuclear power plants and factories. Salon has already christened him with a nickname: James Pond.

The CIA won’t reveal why this robotic fish was built, but some speculate he’s intended to collect water samples around nuclear power plants and factories (Click Image To Enlarge)

Other objects in Spy hearken from World War II, like the Enigma code-making machine that encrypted Allied messages. There are plenty of secret disguise aids, like a reversible cape, and recording devices abound, from the shoe-borne variety to a super-sensitive recorder, developed by Swiss scientists, that can be worn under your clothes. The show is surprisingly topical, including several fairly recent objet d’espionnage, such as the ice pick that is said to have served as a murder weapon for Trosky in Mexico, in the 1940s, and a Chanel purse belonging to “sexy spy” Anna Chapman, who was arrested in the U.S. and returned to Russia just a few years ago.

The Enigma cipher machine used by the German military and intelligence services during WWII to create what they thought were unbreakable messages (Click Image To Enlarge)

A precision miniature audio tape recorder was built in Switzerland to the highest possible standards. As a very slim device, it could be worn inconspicuously under normal clothing (Click Image To Enlarge)

The icepick that was--allegedly--used to murder Leon Trotsky in Mexico City (Click Image To Enlarge)

Amidst the clutter of outmoded gadgets, what comes through clearly is the sense that information was a precious physical commodity up until a decade ago or so. Today, we walk around with whole gigabytes of data on our person--but for decades, transporting a piece of text or audio was a matter of life and death. Go check out Spy until March of next year.

COMMENTARY:   The "Spy: The Secret World of Espionage" exhibit also includes the following items of interest:

• K.G.B. model of the umbrella that injected a poison ricin pellet into the Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov in 1978. 
• Handmade pair of shoes made for a United States ambassador to Czechoslovakia in the 1960s that Czech intelligence officers bugged with a listening device in the heel. 
• Stasi kit (see below) created molar that was hollowed out to allow microdots to be safely stored in a spy’s mouth. 
• Well-preserved rat with a Velcroed body cavity that was used by Americans in Moscow for exchanges of information without agents’ actually meeting. The rodent, treated with hot pepper sauce to discourage scavenging cats, was easily tossed from a passing car for these “dead drops.”

The Stasi Kit, a kit of tools used by East German members of the Stasi secret police, concealed in a leather case, for spying and surveillance purposes (Click Image To Enlarge)

The gadgets here are full of concealments and misdirection; nothing is what it seems. And much of it is almost quaintly old-fashioned. There are some hints of technological experimentation: a Stasi attaché case fitted with an infrared flash camera that could take pictures in the dark, or the C.I.A. bug that was built inside a cinder block in the visitors’ area of a Soviet embassy and could drill its own listening hole.

A special-purpose small key cutting kit designed for use in a motel room to allow an MI6 agent to duplicate keys for a covert entry (Click Image To Enlarge)

But most of these objects, tools of the trade over a half-century, are not the stuff of the “Mission Impossible” franchise; they are almost all deliberately mundane. They are not meant to startle; they are meant to fade into the background. They work like tricks sold in a magic shop. And they must be used with similar skill.

Something else is similar: once explained, the magic is gone. The objects used in espionage can almost seem silly. Really! Grown people sprinkling dust (nitrophenylpentadienal) on objects to track the movements of whoever touched them? Using a hat, glasses and a fake mustache as a disguise? Employing a hollowed-out nickel to hide top-secret microfilm? All of espionage can easily seem like a kid’s game, except for the trails of blood and insight that are invariably left in its wake.

And this show, produced by Base Entertainment, contains more than enough to make it resemble a child’s game: interactive screens on which you can disguise a photo of yourself; kiosks where your voice can be distorted and filtered; a mist-filled dark room with shifting laser beams that challenge you to make your way across, without breaking the circuit. (A password-oriented interactive game is too lame for its climactic position in the exhibition.)

There are also larger objects here that reveal, more dramatically, that technological sophistication is not a requirement, nor is it something that necessarily increases over time. Next to a collapsible motor scooter with which Allied spies parachuted behind enemy lines during World War II is a saddle, draped with an Afghan blanket, that was used by a C.I.A. officer riding across the forbidding terrain during the first months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

If you are a history or nostalgia buff, and just happen to be in New York City between now and the end of spring, visiting the "Spy: The Secret World of Espionage" exhibit in Times Square could be a very worthwhile experience.   Tickets are as follows:

• Adults - $27.00
• Kids (4-12) - $19.50
• Seniors (65+) - $23.50
• Group discounts are available 

 Courtesy of an article dated November 16, 2012 appearing in Fast Company Design

COULD GOOGLE'S AUGMENTED REALITY GLASSES BE THE GAME-CHANGER THAT GOOGLE+ NEEDS TO BEAT FACEBOOK IN SOCIAL?

Google's augmented reality headsup display glasses are scheduled for delivery in 2013 (Click Image To Enlarge)

If Google Plus were Google’s sole attempt to compete with Facebook in the realm of social, then Google would be screwed. Google+ does everything that Facebook does – with some features that are even better than Facebook’s – but it hasn’t been able to get much traction as a social network. It’s like a really great night spot in a part of town that no one goes to; the bar is well-stocked, the seats are comfy, and the interior decoration is superb, but the place is sparsely populated. With both bars and social networks, we want a bit of a crowd.

Photo taken by someone wearing a pair of Google's augmented reality headsup display glasses during a press conference (Click Image To Enlarge)

The real challenge Google has for Facebook is the secretive Google X lab’s creation, “Project Glass,” which New York Times refers to as “Terminator Style Glasses” (check the url) and what the rest of us fondly call “Google Glasses.” The augmented reality glasses would bring smartphone computing straight to your eyeballs, and allow wearers to capture photos and videos of the world as they see it.   In the first Project Glass video released, a Googler tramps it up:

 

Person wearing a pair of Google's augmented reality headsup display glasses, doing backflips on a trampoline 

Creating video and images like these is a visual social experience. In fact, sharing the world as you see it with someone else may be the ultimate social experience. The Project Glass output has the same allure as Instagram — capturing where someone is at a given moment, and what they’re doing — but has an enhanced intimacy from seeing the world as that person sees it, rather than as they see it through their phone. I’m calling it now: Google Glass stalking is going to be way more fun than Facebook stalking.

Googler Sebastian Thrun, playing with his son, Jasper, while wearing Google's augmented reality headsup display glasses (Click Image To Enlarge)

Facebook bought Instagram and created a Facebook Camera because photos — and specifically photos of people — are at the heart of Facebook and the social experience. With Google Glasses — which Google's co-founder Sergey Brin says may be available commercially as early as 2013 and which NYT has said will cost between $250 and $600 — Google is muscling its way into the social photo space in a big way.

Media/tech thinker Robin Sloan pegs this as the next big battle between the tech giants: “Facebook Camera vs. Project Glass” or “pictures vs. vision”:

"When you think Facebook, think: photos. And don’t be surprised if you see Facebook do even more to cement this incredible position."

Speaking of, Facebook is rumored to be acquiring Face.com, an Israeli start-up that uses facial recognition to tag people in photos and even allows them to ‘check in’ at events via a facial scan.

"And when you think Google, think… well, think long-term. I feel like Facebook is probably an easier place to work than Google these days. Facebook is all huge numbers going up, up, up everyday—everything except the share price, but that will come in time. Google, on the other hand, is Google+ and its undead shambling… but damn, it’s also Project Glass, and those cars that can drive themselves! Google is getting good, really good, at building things that see the world around them and actually understand what they’re seeing."

"In this context, Google+ is not the company’s most strategic project. That distinction goes to Glass, to the self-driving cars, and to Google Maps, Street View, and Earth: Google’s detailed model of the real, physical world."

And because Google Glasses will have the ability to send text messages, take phone calls, and give directions, Apple‘s iPhone will also be in the boxing ring here.

Another advantage Google Glasses may have: taking us out of a world of screens and little boxes, and into a world where the technology around us is near invisible (beyond the geek-hipster frames sitting on your face). At the very least, it’s hand-less. Apple made a similar move in this direction with Siri, allowing people to gradually phase keyboards out of their computing.

Google CEO Larry Page wearing a pair of Google augmented reality headsup display glasses (Click Image To Enlarge)

We’re constantly being told these days that sitting is killing us, and that the amount of time we spend planted in a chair, glued to computers and tablets, is dangerously unhealthy. Technologies that allow us to be mobile and engaged with the world, while still connected to the Internet, are going to continue to be attractive, even if we don’t look our most attractive while wearing them.

COMMENTARY:   It's debatable whether Google Glasses will be enough of a leap forward in technology to give Google+ the inertia it needs to jump ahead of Facebook.  It's a nice device to have if you constantly need to share what you see in your world to the rest of your social circle.

The high price tag is going to be a big hurdle towards mainstream adoption. The price needs to come down substantially so that it is as affordable as a pair of headphones.    

The glasses themselves are due for a complete redesign.  Looking Geeky just isn't cool enough.  In a blog post dated April 14, 2012, I mentioned the design issue and believe that licensing the technology to fashion designers like Prada and Gucci, could be a way around this, but users would have to pay an even higher designer price tag.  

In a blog posts dated February 8, 2012 and February 23, 2012, I mentioned several problems with the glasses.  The location-based and face recognition technology that will undoubtedly be built into the software behind the Google Glasses will definite raise some serious privacy concerns.  

Advertisers might use the glasses to reach potential customers, but will users be receptive to receiving small display ads or text announcements when they are near a retailer's store running those ads on Google+ or Google Search?   This could certainly give advertising a huge punch, but those ads are awful intrusive if you ask me.

I definitely see the Google Glasses providing a huge boost to the travel and tourism industry.   

Courtesy of an article dated May 30, 2012 appearing in Forbes

"DON'T BE EVIL" IS GOOGLE'S UNOFFICIAL CORP MOTTO, BUT CAN WE TRUST IT AFTER ITS NEW ALL-INCLUSIVE PRIVACY POLICY?

Google's contentious new privacy policy officially takes effect today, despite some objections from Canada's privacy commissioner and others around the world.

Google insists it had users in mind when it consolidated the privacy policies for most of its more than 70 products and streamlined the text.

The main concern being raised by most critics is how Google will now start saving user information collected from all its services in one place. For example, users who log into several different services — such as Google.ca, Gmail and YouTube — will have data about all their searches and clicks stored together.

Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, in a blog post to users said.

"Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience."

Users can stop this data consolidation from happening by staying logged out when using the search engine or YouTube, or by having separate logins for each different site.

In a letter to Google, Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said the search giant's efforts to created a more user-friendly privacy policy was "a step in the right direction." But she raised several concerns. For one, she said users aren't being told enough about how to effectively opt out of Google's new plan.

She wrote.  

"We would strongly encourage you to make it clearer to users that if they are uncomfortable with these new uses of information, they can create separate accounts. This is not clearly stated in your new policy." 

"As we understand it, the policy changes do not mean that Google is collecting more information about its users than it currently does. They do, however, mean that you are going to be using the information in new ways — ways that may make some users uncomfortable."

She also said the new privacy policy isn't clear about how long it will take for personal information to be deleted when requested by a user.

Google is also facing heat in Europe over the new privacy policy, which France's privacy regulator said is a violation of the European Union's data protection rules.

A letter to Google from the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes (CNIL) reads.

"Our preliminary analysis shows that Google's new policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection.  The CNIL and the EU data protection authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of data across services and have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing."

CBC's Ron Charles looks at the upcoming changes to Google's privacy policy. Some users are concerned about their internet use being tracked by the tech giant.

  

"Don't Be Evil," Google's unofficial corporate motto was originally adopted as a company-wide belief as well as a jab to its competitors.  However, Google has come a long way since it was incorporated in 1998, and that has some users wondering if the company's philosophy has changed. BackgroundCheck.org asks, "Mother Can I Trust Google?" in the following infographic:  

 Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:  Google, Twitter and Facebook have been the subject of investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for numerous privacy violations.  

In a blog post dated March 31, 2012, I reported that Google and Twitter had both been placed on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits.  

In the press release about the FTC settlements with both Google and Twitter, it states:

"A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000".

If the FTC had imposed that $16,000 per violation penalty, it would've been sufficient to put both Google and Twitter out-of-business.  However, the feds would never impose a penalty that serious because it is not in their best interests.  The Feds depend on and carefully monitor the activities of users on social networks and other sites to compile and track down criminals and terrorists. Attorney's also use social sites to gather evidence they can use in lawsuits and divorce cases.  What a racket.     

In a blog post dated November 30, 2011, I reported that Facebook had settled with the FTC for numerous privacy violations going back into 2010.   Like Google and Twitter, the FTC placed Facebook on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits. 

Co-founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post on the company's official blog on Tuesday.

"I'm the first to admit that we've made a bunch of mistakes." 

He said a few "high-profile" mistakes, such as changes to the service's privacy policy two years ago, "have often overshadowed much of the good work we've done."

To ensure that Facebook did a better job, Zuckerberg said the company had created two new corporate privacy officer positions to oversee Facebook products and policy.

In its complaint, the FTC said that Facebook had repeatedly violated laws against deceptive and unfair practices. For example, it said Facebook promised users that it would not share personal information with advertisers, but it did.

Also, the company had failed to warn users that it was changing its website in December 2009 so that certain information that users had designated as private, such as their "Friends List," would be made public, the FTC said.

Facebook's Timeline feature, which it rolled out for all users on February 29, 2012, has been a subject of much controversy because of the huge potential for even more privacy violations.  Also, only about 10% of Facebook users actually like Timeline.   

The new Timeline feature makes everything a person has ever done on Facebook appear on a single screen that scrolls down year by year right back to when the person was born.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described Timeline as letting you "tell the whole story of your life on a single page".

However, as Timeline makes all of a user's photographs and wall posts visible to friends, critics have warned the mandatory change could erode users' privacy.

There are also concerns that this will instantly make it easier for identity thieves and stalkers to profile individuals.

However, a spokeswoman for the site said the change would not alter existing privacy settings. 

As you can readily see, user privacy is a huge concern, and the FTC has come down hard on both Google, Twitter and Facebook.   LinkedIn maybe the subject of sanctions as well over ads using pictures of users without their permission.   

It should be obvious by now that Google broke from its motto of "Don't Be Evil," and  that controversy over privacy continues to haunt it like flies over a picnic table.  If we are to hold Google accountable, then we must do the same for all the major social networks, who have violated our privacy and continue to do so to this date. 

Courtesy of an article dated April 18, 2012 appearing in BackgroundCheck.org and an article dated March 15, 2012 appearing in Socialphy

TECH EMPLOYERS ASKING JOB HUNTERS FOR THEIR FACEBOOK PASSWORDS, AND 1 IN 5 ARE REJECTING JOB APPLICANTS OVER THEIR SM POSTS

Social media profiles are a great way to network and promote yourself, both personally and professionally, but they are also a great way to sabotage yourself with stupid, incriminating content.

And indeed, it turns out that one out of five technology firms has rejected a job applicant because of something they included on their social media profile, according to the 2012 annual technology market survey conducted by Eurocom Worldwide and its associated agencies.

This finding is especially remarkable because a previous wave of the study found that only around 40% of the tech executives surveyed were even looking at profiles of job applicants at all. While that number has probably increased, the fact remains that a large proportion of executives who look at social media profiles are finding something they don’t like.

Mads Christensen, Network Director at Eurocom Worldwide, offered a summary of the findings which makes me want to climb in bed, turn the lights out, and pull the covers over my head forever:

“The 21st century human is learning that every action leaves an indelible digital trail. In the years ahead many of us will be challenged by what we are making public in various social forums today.”

More positively for social media, the Eurocom survey also found that 49% of tech executives said they plan to increase spending on social media in the next year. Of course, social media is still haunted by the unresolved question of ROI, as 57% of surveys said they are still unable to measure the impact of social media spending.

COMMENTARY:  For quite a while I have been warning my readers about professional social media snooping firms like Social Intelligence Corporation, a firm that makes a living investigating what job applicatioins say and post online, especially on social networks like Facebook and Twitter and reporting their findings to employers who hire them.  Social Intelligence Corporation does this legally and there is not much you can do about it.  

Besides verifying prior employment, many employer's are now conducting background checks, credit checks, drug tests, and now social media investigations.  Many will require job applications to sign an authorization giving them this authority.  If you haven't already done so, I urge you to read my previous blog posts dated October 3, 2010, February 3, 2012 and March 8, 2012.   

Now we find that employers have been asking their employees and new job applications to provide them with the password to their social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter and others.  This is the straw that broke the camels back, because it is going far overboard in violating our privacy.   Non-profit organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU.org), PrivacyRights.org and BackgroundCheck.org believe that employers have gone too far so have collaborated in designing the following Social Networking Bill of Rights.

 Click Image To Enlarge

Due to The Great Recession and a slow recovering U.S. economy, jobs in some part of America are very hard to comeby, and employers have become very selective, are using selective and discriminatory hiring practices like requiring that you already be gainfully employed to even apply for a job, others are discriminating on the basis of age and getting away with it, and now they believe that they can legally violate our privacy by asking for our social network passwords.  Well, I am here to tell you that they can't.  So no matter how great that new company is, how great the new job is, or how much money they throw at you, if they ask you to give up the passwords to your social networks watchout.  You tell them from me:  "No!!"  In fact, you tell them "Fuck No!!"  It's none of their business and an invasion of your privacy.  I would also report the incident to the ACLU and PrivacyRights.org.

Facebook agrees with me on the subject of  releasing your social network password to employers. On March 23, 2012, here's what Erin Egan, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer said about the new practice by some employers to ask employees and new job applications for their social network account passwords:

"In recent months, we’ve seen a distressing increase in reports of employers or others seeking to gain inappropriate access to people’s Facebook profiles or private information. This practice undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user’s friends. It also potentially exposes the employer who seeks this access to unanticipated legal liability."

"The most alarming of these practices is the reported incidents of employers asking prospective or actual employees to reveal their passwords.  If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.  We have worked really hard at Facebook to give you the tools to control who sees your information."

"As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job.  And as the friend of a user, you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job.  That’s why we’ve made it a violation of Facebook’s  Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password."

"We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don’t think it’s the right thing to do.  But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating.  For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don’t hire that person." 

"Employers also may not have the proper policies and training for reviewers to handle private information.  If they don’t—and actually, even if they do—the employer may assume liability for the protection of the information they have seen or for knowing what responsibilities may arise based on different types of information (e.g. if the information suggests the commission of a crime)."

"Facebook takes your privacy seriously.  We’ll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges."

"While we will continue to do our part, it is important that everyone on Facebook understands they have a right to keep their password to themselves, and we will do our best to protect that right."

-- Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer, Policy

While I am on the subject of privacy.  I highly recommend that you NOT use company computers to access your personal email or social network accounts or do any web surfing (unless the latter is required in your job performance).  IT departments have been known to track your online behaviors while at work.  Many employees have been fired over this.  About 40% of employers now ban social networking from the workplace even if you are using your smartphone, and if you post something derogatory about them on your social network, you are just asking for problems. Remember, unless you have an employment contract, in most states you are an at-will employee, and can be fired for any reason.   

Courtesy of an article dated March 19, 2012 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf    and an article dated March 20, 2012 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf

STUDY: FACEBOOK BEING USED BY EMPLOYERS TO SELECT WORKERS AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SNOOPING FIRMS THEY USE

Employers already know it’s a good idea to check job candidates’ Facebook pages to make sure there aren’t any horrible red flags there. The reddest flags for most employers seem to be drugs, drinking, badmouthing former employers, and lying about one’s qualifications. But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job.

That’s the conclusion in a study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology last month. The researchers hired HR types to rate hundreds of college students’ Facebook pages according to how employable they seemed.

One of the study author’s, Don Kluemper, of Northern Illinois University says. 

“We asked them to form impressions of a candidate based solely on their Facebook page.”

This involved looking at what was publicly available on those pages (photos, status updates, and conversations with friends) and then assigning each person a score for a number of qualities important to being a good employee, such as their degree of emotionally stability, conscientiousness, extroversion, intellectual curiosity and agreeableness. (In other words, will they flip out on you, care about completing tasks, be fun to work with, be creative in problem solving, and be willing to kiss up when necessary?) The review took about five to ten minutes per profile.

Six months later, the researchers got in touch with their guinea pigs’ employers to ask about their job performances. Unfortunately, of the over 500 guinea pigs, just 56 of the employers responded. So the sample is small, but the researchers found a strong correlation between those employers’ reviews and the employability predictions they had made based on folks’ profile pages.

I asked Kluemper about the “personality red flags” that their reviewers looked for. He was a little vague but said that a person with obvious mood swings, who is overly emotional in their postings would not be an attractive candidate. Meanwhile, a person with a lot of Facebook friends who takes a lot of crazy photos would be rated as extroverted and friendly — which are attractive qualities in a candidate.

Key takeaway for hiring employers: The Facebook page is the first interview; if you don’t like a person there, you probably won’t like working with them. The bad news for employers, though, who are hoping to take the Facebook shortcut Kluemper said.

“So many more profiles are restricted in what the public can access.” 

Given the small sample size for that first study, I was more impressed by the second. In the second study, the researchers did a similar assessment of students’ Facebook selves and also had the students take personality and IQ tests. Then, instead of following up with employers, they turned to students’ transcripts.  Kluemper says.  

“We were able to better predict a student’s academic success based on their Facebook page than on the cognitive tests.” 

(Most universities claim they don’t stalk applicants on social networking sites during the admissions process. Maybe they should?)

Of course, there are some legal questions to think about before jumping into someone’s Facebook page. Employers can discriminate against potential employees who seem like bummers based on their Wall postings and interests, but will get into trouble if what the Facebook user has said about their religious views affects the hiring process.

COMMENTARY:  For quite a while I have been warning my readers about the dangers of posting or saying offensive things on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.   Unless you make your Facebook or Twitter page private, you are an open book, and whatever you post on your social network page, could come back to haunt you, no matter how qualified you may be for the job.  

The addition of Facebook's Timeline is going to be a goldmine for employers because it makes it much easier for an employer to dig up dirt you may have long forgotten about.  If you've said some derogatory things about an opposing political party or candidate, a former employer or co-worker, or even an ex-girlfriend or spouse, even the boss' favorite sports team, this can be viewed very negatively by employers.

Law enforcement organizations and government agencies like the FBI, NSA and the CIA are actively involved and working closely with many of the major social networks to conduct investigations, gather evidence and track down criminals and terrorists.  Much of this investigation and data gathering is done under the auspices of the Patriot Act in the interest of national security, so in special circumstances they may not be required to obtain a subpoena to access your private Facebook or Twitter account. The former Director of the CIA testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee about the billions Facebook had saved the agency. The director said with a smile on his face,

"After years of secretly monitoring the public, we were astounded that so many people would willingly publicize where they lived, their religious and political views, alphabetize a list of all their friends' personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates of what they were doing moment-to-moment.  It is truly a dream come true for the CIA."

Here, checkout the YouTube video yourself.

   

To assist employers in their hiring decisions, many employers are now using what I call "professional social media snooping" firms to scour the internet to find out what you say and post online, particularly on social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and others.  In a blog post dated October 3, 2010, I profiled Social Intelligence Corporation, one of these social media snoopers, and at that time called it a "creepy startup" and "truly scary" company.  

Apparently consumers hurt by this companies activities filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claiming they were in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1996, 2004 with amendments there to.

On May 9, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission ruled on behalf of Social Intelligence Corp claiming that they were not in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act.  This effectively gave Social Intellignece Corporation the legality to provide social media consumer reports to employers conducting background checks on prospective employees.

On February 3, 2012, I told you about the growing trend by employers to use social media snooping firms to help employers screen employees through their social media behaviors. It's not just a U.S. trend, employers all over the world are now using social media snooping firms.  More than half of my readers are from countries outside the U.S., so you should be aware of this.  

 

According to Social Intelligence Corp. CEO Max Drucker, the company focuses on screening social media profiles for the usual suspects -- racist remarks, sexually explicit content, pictures with guns, knives, or other weapons, and other illegal behavior (think bongs).

There are some limits on how employers may use archived social media content, however. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, companies are required to tell prospective employees (or, say, credit applicants) that they are going to perform background check and obtain their permission to do so. Employers are also required by law to tell the applicant about any damaging information they find online.

The majority of my readers probably have nothing to worry about, but if you have a previous felony conviction, been fired for cause, previously lost your job due to a layoff, and you voiced your anger online, you have a lot to risk.  By some estimates, as many as 40% of longterm unemployed may be in limbo and simply unemployable because of their online social media behaviors.   Social media snooping firms have already expanded into the insurance industry.   Their reports could cause you to lose your health or life insurance coverage or prevent you from obtaining insurance coverage.  If you have any experience or information about the activities of these snoopers, post it on my blog, or shoot me an email.   I have a feeling we have just scratched the surface.                            

Courtesy of an article dated March 5, 2012 appearing in Forbes 

 

LONDON'S SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGES FACEBOOK READS THE TEXT MESSAGES OF THOSE USING FACEBOOK'S SMS APP

Let's take a healthy sodium-dose here, but London's Sunday Times is alleging that Facebook has admitted to reading users' text messages. People at Facebook supposedly read the private SMS messages of users who downloaded the Facebook app on their smartphones.

This was allegedly in preparation for Facebook launching their own messaging service, but it is not known if it still continues today. Or, really, if it happened at all. The Sunday Times article is very scant in the way of evidence, quoting only unnamed sources, and then devolving into a rehashing of every other known privacy concern to pad the article.

While it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it happened—we've come to expect this sort of thing as of late—let's hold off on the torches and pitchforks until we have some more substancial proof. We are reaching out to Facebook for a comment, and will update if we hear back. Then we can light our pitchforks and sharpen our torches. Or something like that. [Sunday Times viaTechCrunch]

UPDATE: Facebook has responded to Business Insider's request for a statement, and boy is it a mouthful.

"There is no reading of user text messages."

"On the Android App store, the Facebook app permissions include SMS read/write."

"The reason it is on there is because we have done some testing (not with the general public) of products that require the SMS part of the phone to talk to the Facebook App. That's what the read&write refers to – the line of communication needed to integrate the two things."

"Lots of communications apps use these permissions. Think of all those apps that act as replacements to the build-in sms software."

"That's not necessarily what we're working on. SMS can be used for carrier billing (where users opt to pay for things like apps through their phone bill). Again – that's not to say we're launching this. It's just an example of why an app might use these permissions. The Sunday Times leap to the conclusion that is was a messaging feature."

"Anyway – we have yet to make any such features available to the public. (so the Sunday Times is completely wrong when it says Facebook is reading people's SMS. Wrong on the terminology, and wrong on the suggestion that it has been implemented)."

"But Facebook is right to insert this into the Android app permissions – because yes, the app technically has the capability to integrate with the phone's SMS system – even if that is just for our own testing."

So, there you have it. As we suspect, sounds like a lot of getting excited about what isn't much, or at least isn't much yet. It looks like they're working on a new feature, so we've probably got some time before that rolls out, and then we can freak out when we realize that it's sold all of our precious love-letters (or love-texts) for drug money. Or something. Until them, BOOOOOOto the Sunday Times for trying to trick people into paying to read their sensationalized article.

COMMENTARY:    That Facebook response is all PHOOOEYYY!! if you ask me.  I didn't actually understand much of it.  It was just too lengthy, and a bit too technical.  Anytime I have to read something two or three times, it's probably mumbo jumbo, or something that the writer has problems explaining.  

Our locations and reading our messages is one of the last frontier of privacy violations that are now occuring.  Facebook would love to hear what people say outside their social network like in their text messages about brands and their products, or what they say about Facebook, for that matter.  

They would love to know where we are all the time so they can feed us a mobile ad or two, or a text message reminder that McD's has a two-for-1 sale on their hamburgers.

I just turned off the GPS function on my smartphone through my settings because any app I run on it could be tracking me right now.  GPS also wears down your battery.   Unless you absolutely need to turn on GPS, because an app needs your location, I would be very careful about turning it on.  

Finally, I don't trust most social networks, especially Facebook, because Facebook has committed the most privacy violations of any of the big five social networks.   I have warned you that Facebook is under the grip of the CIA, FBI, NSA and numerous law enforcement organizations. They just love it that you post everything about yourself on those sites.  Everytime I post a blog post, it ends up on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and now Google+.  I need the traffic, but when it comes to providing personal information about myself, watch out.   

This latest allegation about Facebook reading our SMS text messages would not be too farfetched. Take the above denial with a grain of salt.  It's probably happening under our noses.  The more they deny, the more it seems they are nice guys, but don't think about it that way.  When a company doesn't make anything, then YOU are the product. 

Courteshy of an article dated February 26, 2012 appearing in Gizmodo