A funny and enlightened (sort of) memo on being acquired...
Amazon, Woot, and You: But Mostly Woot
Jun 30, 2010
Jun 28, 2010
Death by Gadget in Congo - NYTimes.com
I am complicit in this. As most who know me know my love for gadgets and technology. I try, however, to keep in mind the social issues that come from that habit, such as toxic waste, and this, "conflict minerals." Or more bluntly "blood phones." Here is an impassioned and thoughtful op-ed by Nicholas Kristof of the NYT on the issue:
As he points out, the solution to this problem starts with awareness and pressure on tech firms to play a more responsible role in purchasing minerals for their products. It looks like the message is being heard in DC too, with congress voting to keep a Conflict Minerals amendments in the Financial Reform Bill this last week. And for something a little cuter:
Op-Ed Columnist - Death by Gadget in Congo - NYTimes.com
An ugly paradox of the 21st century is that some of our elegant symbols of modernity — smartphones, laptops and digital cameras — are built from minerals that seem to be fueling mass slaughter and rape in Congo...Warlords finance their predations in part through the sale of mineral ore containing tantalum, tungsten, tin and gold...used to make electrical capacitors that go into phones, computers and gaming devices.
As he points out, the solution to this problem starts with awareness and pressure on tech firms to play a more responsible role in purchasing minerals for their products. It looks like the message is being heard in DC too, with congress voting to keep a Conflict Minerals amendments in the Financial Reform Bill this last week. And for something a little cuter:
Op-Ed Columnist - Death by Gadget in Congo - NYTimes.com
Jun 10, 2010
Social Media usage by Fortune 100 firms
A few stats on Social Media use in Fortune 100 companies courtesy of iStrategy:
Fortune 100 Social Media Statistics: key takeaways
- 79% of the Fortune 100 are present and listening, using at least of one of the main social platforms to communicate with their customers.
- 20% of Companies are using all four of the main social technologies (Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Blogs)
- 82% of the Fortune 100 update and engage with customers on their Twitter account per week.
- Fortune 100 Companies on average post 3.6 wall posts to their Facenbook page per week
- 50% of the Fortune 100 have a YouTube account and upload 10 videos on average a month
May 21, 2010
Herre we go again...
Sigh, this is classic for anyone who's worried about data privacy when developing web-based apps. The WSJ reports today that:
And don' tell me advertisers armed with URL referrers back to user profile pages are making sure they are getting user's consent before looking at the profiles.
A URL referrer (i.e., user ID of the page) is a technicality; if it goes back to the user's profile page then it is a breach of a policy not to divulge personally identifiable information to 3rd parties.
I repeat myself, I'm glad all of this is happening. The social media is growing up and it's the consumers that are ensuring that things are getting safer out there. Apparently when experts expose security issues the fixes languish:
I know it's hip to buck the established/academic technology world in social media tech circles, but sometimes these smarty-pants can actually help to prevent some embarrassing moments.
Facebook, MySpace Confront Privacy Loophole - WSJ.com
So if you click on an ad from your profile page, the referring URL is sent to the advertiser without being scrubbed. Looks like steps are being/have been taken by at least Facebook, but this is a rookie mistake. To ameliorate the sting of yet another Facebook privacy smack-down, other social networks are doing the same:The practice, which most of the companies defended, sends user names or ID numbers tied to personal profiles being viewed when users click on ads. After questions were raised by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook and MySpace moved to make changes. By Thursday morning Facebook had rewritten some of the offending computer code.
Advertising companies are receiving information that could be used to look up individual profiles, which, depending on the site and the information a user has made public, include such things as a person's real name, age, hometown and occupation.
In addition to Facebook and MySpace, LiveJournal, Hi5, Xanga and Digg also sent advertising companies the user name or ID number of the page being visited. (MySpace is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.) Twitter—which doesn't have ads on profile pages—also was found to pass Web addresses including user names of profiles being visited on Twitter.com when users clicked other links on the profiles.
And don' tell me advertisers armed with URL referrers back to user profile pages are making sure they are getting user's consent before looking at the profiles.
Facebook said its practices are now consistent with how advertising works across the Web. The company passes the "user ID of the page but not the person who clicked on the ad," the company spokesman said. "We don't consider this personally identifiable information and our policy does not allow advertisers to collect user information without the user's consent."
A URL referrer (i.e., user ID of the page) is a technicality; if it goes back to the user's profile page then it is a breach of a policy not to divulge personally identifiable information to 3rd parties.
I repeat myself, I'm glad all of this is happening. The social media is growing up and it's the consumers that are ensuring that things are getting safer out there. Apparently when experts expose security issues the fixes languish:
The sharing of users' personally identifiable data was first flagged in a paper by researchers at AT&T Labs and Worcester Polytechnic Institute last August. The paper, which drew little attention at the time, evaluated practices at 12 social networking sites including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace and found multiple ways that outside companies could access user data.
I know it's hip to buck the established/academic technology world in social media tech circles, but sometimes these smarty-pants can actually help to prevent some embarrassing moments.
Facebook, MySpace Confront Privacy Loophole - WSJ.com
May 19, 2010
Privacy in the news
Its been an interesting couple weeks for raising privacy awareness. As Facebook gets hammered by its users and the media on privacy concerns (see my earlier post), Google is finding itself in hotter water with German officials and potentially the US FTC with investigations over collecting private data.
I've been watching this story unfold for the last few weeks. German prosecutors are investigating Google's apparent 3 year practice of collecting unsecured WiFi data with its Street View cars. On Friday May 14th Google admitted and apologized on its blog for the "mistaken" collection of private network data. This was after they denied the allegations in an earlier blog post. In the May 14th post Google explains how they inadvertently left experimental WiFi network data collection code in the Street View car code and sent it on the road. An honest mistake, says Google, with no bad or nefarious intentions. Google also made sure to say that it is taking steps to cooperate with officials and remove any offended data. Good.
True this can happen with code, but I'm particularly concerned about the lack of adult supervision that would allow Google to end up in this position. Yes, it is the maverick frontier of Web X.0 and stuff like this happens. But, there are lots of technologist who could have told Google this could happen and helped to protect itself from something like this. They would have also checked the code before posting a denial, to make sure there wasn't any mistake to correct.
Thing is, Google has a lot to lose today, with its foray into enterprise and the fact that is starting to charge for business grade services. It's one thing when you offer your services for free and then muck around with privacy settings (like Facebook). It can really annoy users but hey, they aren't paying for consistency. Its another thing, however, when you're trying to break into the skittish business market, get them to change their thinking about the Web, and trust that you have robust respect and technology for data protection and privacy.
Personally, I'm glad to see all this kerfuffle about privacy. Social networks the size of Facebook and data hoarders like Google are good things but there are risks. As consumers become more educated about those risks the more pressure can be placed on technology providers to mitigate those risks. I remember when cars didn't have to have seat belts or children didn't need to ride in car seats. These are good things that consumers demanded. As more and more people get connected to the Internet, safety should be a leading concern for all Internet providers.
I've been watching this story unfold for the last few weeks. German prosecutors are investigating Google's apparent 3 year practice of collecting unsecured WiFi data with its Street View cars. On Friday May 14th Google admitted and apologized on its blog for the "mistaken" collection of private network data. This was after they denied the allegations in an earlier blog post. In the May 14th post Google explains how they inadvertently left experimental WiFi network data collection code in the Street View car code and sent it on the road. An honest mistake, says Google, with no bad or nefarious intentions. Google also made sure to say that it is taking steps to cooperate with officials and remove any offended data. Good.
True this can happen with code, but I'm particularly concerned about the lack of adult supervision that would allow Google to end up in this position. Yes, it is the maverick frontier of Web X.0 and stuff like this happens. But, there are lots of technologist who could have told Google this could happen and helped to protect itself from something like this. They would have also checked the code before posting a denial, to make sure there wasn't any mistake to correct.
Thing is, Google has a lot to lose today, with its foray into enterprise and the fact that is starting to charge for business grade services. It's one thing when you offer your services for free and then muck around with privacy settings (like Facebook). It can really annoy users but hey, they aren't paying for consistency. Its another thing, however, when you're trying to break into the skittish business market, get them to change their thinking about the Web, and trust that you have robust respect and technology for data protection and privacy.
Personally, I'm glad to see all this kerfuffle about privacy. Social networks the size of Facebook and data hoarders like Google are good things but there are risks. As consumers become more educated about those risks the more pressure can be placed on technology providers to mitigate those risks. I remember when cars didn't have to have seat belts or children didn't need to ride in car seats. These are good things that consumers demanded. As more and more people get connected to the Internet, safety should be a leading concern for all Internet providers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)