In a recent article Computerworld magazine waded into the world of online reputation management to see what all the hubbub is about. ReputationDefender’s CEO Michael Fertik is sourced extensively throughout the article, and provides expert commentary on Online Reputation Management. Computerworld’s approach is good for their readers; it introduces ORM to a broader audience and looks at the realities of dealing with our digital dirt in a wired society. The magazine set up a simple test of three items to be removed and then graded their progress. From the article, the three items they threw into the Internet and then tried to haul back out were:
• A recent college graduate with a distinctive last name would like to get rid of an entry on someone else’s long-abandoned online journal.
• A freelance writer is mistakenly identified as a movie critic on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular site that aggregates movie reviews from print, TV and the Web.
• In an interview seven years ago, an IT professional gave a quote to Computerworld that included a salty phrase.
None of these items is particularly salacious, save potentially the first, and they are not uncommon problems for the average web user to encounter. What’s more interesting is the process that Computerworld has to go through for each individual item and the mixed bag of results they end up with.
The article is a good read for those new to Online Reputation Management, and for those curious about the steps necessary to even begin trying to restore, maintain or establish an online identity. ReputationDefender has a variety of services and products to help you maintain your good reputation online.
In the four years that Google has operated offices in Europe (major offices in Dublin, Zurich and London, with smaller centers in Denmark, Russia and Poland, among other countries) it has found itself increasingly at odds with the privacy laws of our European brethren.
For instance, in Switzerland, where Google has 450 employees working in a seven-story converted brewery, data protection officials have requested that Google do away with a plan to introduce Street View’s 360-degree, ground-level photographic images. The reason being that Swiss privacy lawsforbid the unauthorized use of personal images or property. To give you another example, in Germany if Street View even wanted to take a photograph for the service it would be violating existing privacy laws. So far, Street View extends only to major cities in France, Spain and Italy.
But Europe is upset with the Big G for more than a few purloined private moments via camera. The European Commission in Brussels is questioning how long user logs are retained, and a EU regulatory panel wants Google, along with other search engines, to eradicate their logs after six months. Google has responded that it needs data for the better part of year in order to accurately contextualize news and other popular events for the best search results. The 9-month stance (does that mean Google gives birth to a little data baby?) is a step down from the previous 18-month position they had held.
Still, Google has a way to go before winning over the Continentals. Kiel, a city located on the German Baltic Sea coast, has advised the search engine that its Street View cameras are not welcome, and the company will be assessed fines if it attempts to take pictures there. The city of over 200,000 residents has even gone so far as to distribute stickers for homeowners to place in their windows that warn Google against taking a photograph of their property.
“What Google is doing with Street View violates German law,” said Marit Hansen, deputy director of the Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz in Schleswig-Holstein, the state in which Kiel is located. “It’s not enough that Google’s Street View is not yet available in Germany. The simple photographing is in itself a violation.”
Wanted: Good men and women to serve as a part of a historic Presidential administrative team. Must be a team player and able to handle pressure. Familiarity with deadlines essential, complex screening process applies. Equal Opportunity Employer.
On the heels of the Obama campaign being swept into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue there have been a lot of job slots opening up. Some are newly created, others are being vacated as the Bush administration heads out and Obama moves in. In both cases bodies are needed to fill the seats. But not just any bodies. Barack Obama is very aware of the Internet and how it can help and hinder a cause. Given this, it should come as no surprise to anyone that he is being VERY thorough about who gets a spot on the “O” team.
The process begins with a seven-page questionnaire that has been sent by the office of the President-elect to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. The New York Times has commented that this process may be the most extensive (“some say invasive”) application ever.
And just what does those questions cover? 63 requests for personal and professional records, for starters, covering the applicants’ spouses and grown children as well. Good luck for speeders (sort of): traffic tickets with fines of less than $50 do not need not be reported, but anyone with a family member in the NRA take note, the application asks whether the applicant or anyone in their family owns a firearm.
While all of this is interesting from a political standpoint, what really caught our eye was the provision that all applicants must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages. As we have noted before on this blog, Obama is the Internet President, and he is covering his digital bases. The application goes on further to ask for applicants to “list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
Of course the competition for a job in the White House has always been high, even if you weren’t gunning for Commander-In-Chief. The vetting process has been modified and added on to with each incoming administration, but Mr. Obama has taken his background hunts to a new level, especially with regards to applicants’ family members. The Obama camp stands behind their process, though, stating “President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that.”
With the economy large in many Americans’ minds, the Obama campaign has sought to minimize any potential red flags in their hiring by avoiding hot topics like Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Question 18 of the Obama application asks the applicant whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” has been affiliated with either of the two failed mortgage institutions, as well as American International Group, Washington Mutual or any other institution getting a piece of the government bailout.
Remembering the trouble that Bill Clinton got into back in the early 90s, immigration status is questioned in the “Domestic Help” section that covers housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers. Beyond that, applicants are requested to supply not only a résumé, but every résumé and biographical statement they’ve used in the last decade.
Oh yeah, and while you’re at it, the application requires the names of anyone an applicant has lived with, a chronological list of activities for which they were paid, documentation of real estate and loans over $10,000, and net worth statements submitted for loans. Furthermore, applicants must report all businesses that they and/or their spouses have been affiliated with and all gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives.
The catch all, though is at the end: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
The message is clear. While Barack Obama understood the power of the internet to raise money and spread his message of change, he is also aware of how the internet can adversely affect people in the digital age.
Two former officers of the police force in Durham, North Carolina are being investigated for alleged derogatory, and potentially racist, Web postings. While the details are not clear yet, the Chief of Police in Durham has stated that a “racial slur” is not the subject of the investigation, but this has done little to quell the outcry from civil rights groups.
The postings were allegedly on the officers’ MySpace or Facebook pages, according to the NAACP, which is calling on the local police to release copies. “We want to know if there will be transparency about those comments to the community and what disciplinary action if any will be taken against these officers,” Durham’s NAACP president Fred Foster Jr. told a local newspaper. “We believe that if these comments are against people of color, then it will be hard for those officers to serve and protect without prejudice and that they should not be allowed to wear the uniform representing public trust.”
By now stories of an Internet posting, meant to be private or not, coming back to haunt the poster are becoming quite commonplace. Seems that some people are just now learning of the reach of the Internet. Of course, any story like this, dealing with a betrayal of trust, abuse of power or display of bias receives even more attention when it is allegedly committed by a law enforcement officer (or any person in a real position of power, for that matter). Whether these charges prove to be true or not remains to be seen, but in the mean time remember that no one is immune from the Internet, and what you do there can (and most likely will) come back to you some day.
Barack Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States this week, and a large part of his platform was centered on the notion of change. Wasting no time, and aiming to be the first true Internet President, Barack Obama launched the official website for his transition to the White House. On Thursday www.change.gov, went online with an invitation for users to offer their ideas for the future of the country. The website further entreats readers to “Share Your Vision” via email.
There’s a countdown to the inauguration on the site, noting the number of days until January 20, 2009 when Obama will be sworn in. In terms of media, there is a blog posting that displays a YouTube video of Obama’s Tuesday victory speech in Chicago.
A quote from Obama is featured on the page, reading: “Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today.” More to the point during this time of economic woe, users can apply for jobs via the website. The site is pretty straightforward, but the degree to which Obama has attempted, with success, to harness and embrace the Internet during his campaign, and now during his transition to the White House, is impressive.
It seems the two titans of search that got together earlier in the year, Google and Yahoo, have ended their whirlwind romance and have agreed to go their own separate ways. Google was always the stronger of the two, better known and more popular, but Yahoo brought a certain Je ne sais quoi to the relationship that people liked. It was good while it lasted. Try not to get all weepy, kids. And don’t forget: it’s not your fault.
Ending our agreement with Yahoo!11/05/2008 07:00:00 AMIn June we announced an advertising agreement with Yahoo! that gave Yahoo! the option of using Google to provide ads on its websites (and its publisher partners’ sites) in the U.S. and Canada. At the same time, both companies agreed to delay implementation of the agreement to give regulators the chance to review it. While this wasn’t legally necessary, we thought it was the right thing to do because Google and Yahoo! have been successful in online advertising and we realized that any cooperation between us would attract attention.We feel that the agreement would have been good for publishers, advertisers, and users — as well, of course, for Yahoo! and Google. Why? Because it would have allowed Yahoo! (and its existing publisher partners) to show more relevant ads for queries that currently generate few or no advertisements. Better ads are more useful for users, more efficient for advertisers, and more valuable for publishers.However, after four months of review, including discussions of various possible changes to the agreement, it’s clear that government regulators and some advertisers continue to have concerns about the agreement. Pressing ahead risked not only a protracted legal battle but also damage to relationships with valued partners. That wouldn’t have been in the long-term interests of Google or our users, so we have decided to end the agreement.We’re of course disappointed that this deal won’t be moving ahead. But we’re not going to let the prospect of a lengthy legal battle distract us from our core mission. That would be like trying to drive down the road of innovation with the parking brake on. Google’s continued success depends on staying focused on what we do best: creating useful products for our users and partners.
This story is a little old, in terms of Internet news cycles, but it is noteworthy nonetheless.
It seems that Google has been running anti-Prop 8 ads on its affiliate networks, against the tenets of its own published advertising policies. To wit, the policy states:
Don’t promote violence or advocate against a protected group.Ad text advocating against any organization, person, or group of people is not permitted.Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group. A protected group is distinguished by their:Race or ethnic origin, Color, National origin, Religion, Disability,Sex, Age, Veteran status, Sexual orientation/Gender identity.
Pretty straightforward (no pun intended), but yet the ads are still there. What gives? Has Google gone evil? Turns out the story is a little but more complicated and capitalistic. A spokesperson for Google, Diana Adair, has stated the company’s position as such: “Google allows ads that advocate for a particular political position regardless of the views that they represent. We currently allow ads advocating both for and against Proposition 8.”
If you are diligent you may wish to read these relevant bits pertaining to Google’s views on Political Advertising. I’ll save you the legwork:
Political advertising is allowed. We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible.However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual’s personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group.
But just what constitutes a protected group, legally? Well, if you click on the link for protected groups you end up back at the Advertising Policies page (see supra), which implies that Google is violating its own policies.
Now, it is easy to take pot shots at the Big G. Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and all that. But what, really, can be made of this interesting little incident? It seems apparent, regardless of your position on Prop 8, that Google has, for the time being, suspended the “Don’t be evil” campaign (and civil rights along with it) to rake in some more ad money. If you’re prone to speculation (and this is Silicon Valley, where we are) you might be looking at the sinking economy and a company’s change of tune as not just a coincidence. Is Google seeking to shore up some funds? We know they cut back on their snacks, is this another sign of the tightening belt?
We won’t speculate on those matters, but it is worth pointing out Google’s direct contravention of its own policy. To which the question follows: What’s the point in having an ad policy that explicitly prohibits advocacy against protected minorities if you permit advocacy against those same minorities, provided the advocacy is vague with regard to overall intentions?
For instance, would Google permit Wal-Mart (let’s say) from running ads that advocated non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? What if Wal-Mart just ran ads that supported legislature that would promote non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? If Wal-Mart were to take out such an ad, then that would be advocacy against a protected class, but Google is attempting to defend itself under the guise that the ads are generic since they don’t specify what Prop 8 does.
This is a potentially slippery slope for Google. The really oddball thing is that despite this logic loophole in the advertising policy of the company, Google execs are campaigning for Obama, and they have publicly come out against Prop 8. How can Google come out against a Proposition that Google says isn’t advocating anything bad against gays? It is logically inconsistent, and there are several Greek philosophers spinning in Elysium.
With less than a day before Americans go to the polls, the two Presidential candidates have done their share of getting media attention. Between interviews, stump speeches and press junkets you’d think there’d be nothing more they could do to win votes. You’d think wrong.
It is nothing new to say that the Internet, over the last few years, has become increasingly interactive. Social networks and the rise of blogs and tweets have changed the way we connect to others through the internet. Heck, the change was so pronounced, they even coined a new term for it. Increasingly, people are not merely passively absorbing the media given to them, they are responding to and reinterpreting that media. While this is not new either, the speed at which these responses can be transmitted and then picked up by others is infinitely faster given the shared online thought process that typifies Web 2.0.
Take, for instance, the video below, titled simply “Palin Song”:
Media is no longer a one-way street. With a computer and access to the Internet anyone can participate in the discussion and effectively become a participant in the media itself. As long as access to the Internet continues unfettered this trend will absolutely continue and grow in depth and scope. It is human nature to interact with our environment, and the Internet has made thought accessible by anyone who is plugged in. We’ve already seen how the growth of blogs has come to affect the news cycle; facts are endlessly checked by untold numbers of would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins. This new, interactive chapter in the media is just getting started. It’s a brave new Internet world.
A new article on the style.com blog details a scary new threat to Internet privacy: Revenge Porn. The article discusses the new way that miffed lovers are turning to the Internet to extort and embarrass their exes, by using video uploading sites and social networks to post compromising photos and videos. Specifically, the stories of several relationships that went awry are highlighted, each showing a slight variation on a theme: couple gets together, tape/photos are made, relationship sours, tapes/photos resurface on the Internet somewhere.
J. W., 24, and T. K., 21, started dating in July 2007 while attending the University of Georgia. The relationship was a whirlwind: Soon after discovering each other on Facebook and hooking up, they moved in together and, according to W., bought a Great Dane and exchanged promise rings. But their union unraveled just as quickly as it had begun, and they broke up in January. Then things really went wrong.
Police say that after K. started dating another man in the spring, W. hacked into her MySpace account and, posing as her, sent bogus messages to her new boyfriend. W. also allegedly installed spyware on K.’s computer to monitor her Web use and eavesdrop on her online conversations, and stole the IDs and passwords she used to access certain websites. But the alleged act that precipitated the situation and may turn out to be W.’s undoing was his vengeful posting of nude photos of K. on his Facebook page.
W. was arrested in May, soon after the pictures appeared online, and charged with 32 misdemeanors, including 14 counts of computer theft, 14 counts of computer invasion of privacy, and an identity-fraud charge for his alleged impersonation of K. on MySpace. Currently free on $6,400 bond, W. is awaiting trial. “I don’t want to go to jail just because we had a bad breakup,” he told one reporter.
The interesting thing to note is how the pornographic material posting is only part of a larger group of crimes, something that we noted in all the profiles. It seems that once a vengeful person has their mind set to post some inflammatory images they are almost inevitably going to go a step further in breaching one’s Internet security. The other scary fact is located near the end of the article, namely that these types of crimes are difficult to prosecute:
Revenge porn is difficult to prosecute because there are no statutes specifically outlawing the practice. So what happens in a revenge-porn case, in effect, is that analog laws are applied to a digital offense. A prime example—in a case that has yet to be resolved—involves A. P., 17, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and his 16-year-old ex. Police say P. posted two images of her on his MySpace page, one a full-frontal nude, the other a close-up of genitalia. P.’s ex-girlfriend, identified in police reports as HLK, had e-mailed him the photos when they were dating. But after she started seeing another guy, “TF,” P. turned to the Web. “Yo tell me this bitch deserves this!!!!!!!” he allegedly wrote in a caption accompanying the full-frontal photo. “TF gets my leftover’s to [sic] bad she’s fucked.”
P. was contacted by an officer from the Janesville Police Department, who warned the teenager to take down the photos. According to police reports, P. decided to leave them on his profile. “Fuck that,” he said, according to the same reports. “I am keeping them up.”
Alerted to the case, MySpace deleted P.’s entire page, and on May 28, P. pleaded not guilty in La Crosse County Circuit Court to charges of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation. A trial date has yet to be set.
From the gist of the article and just given the general tone of the Internet these days it seems inevitable that new laws will be passed to address this disturbing new phenomenon. Until legislation catches up with real life, these events serve as a kind of warning. Michael Fertik, ReputationDefender CEO, gives everyone some sound advice at the end of the article: “The best advice, of course, is to never, ever create sexual photos, videos, e-mails, text messages, or anything else that someone could keep and share in the future. You have to think of revenge porn almost like an STD: something that can only happen because of mixing sex with irresponsibility.”
ReputationDefender Blog found this fun little site on the Internet recently. While all sites have something of a limited lifespan that is directly proportional to their relevance, this one, given Sarah Palin’s innate appeal, could in fact become more popular when the election is over, regardless of who wins.
There’s a little bit of buzz on teh ol’ internetz (that’s the tubes, for those of you stuck in 2006) about an interview Michelle Obama (Barack’s wife, for those of you stuck in a cave or a survivalist bunker with no outside communication system who are just now venturing out because you realize that Y2K didn’t quite work out, nor has the United States been turned into a Mad Max-esque terrorist laden wasteland) supposedly gave to an African news outlet.
The article, published by an organization that calls itself “African Press International,” says that an irate Michelle Obama called their offices and complained that the outlet “spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name,” and “evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.” “Michelle Obama” then goes on to state that her husband “loves his country” and that the organization will receive favorable treatment (presumably from “the Obamas”) if they “write a good story about her husband.”
Anyone who has spent more than a cursory amount of time online in 2008 should see through this ruse in about half a second. Firstly, let’s start with the “news outlet” itself: a blog hosted on Wordpress. Seriously? What respectable news source can’t even buy a domain? Even if we take into account the dismal economic conditions in most African nations, I think it is still safe to assume that a legitimate news organization can get their own site. In fact, a simple Google search for “Africa news” brings up several African news sites that are not blogs and have their own domains. This is not to say that blogs can’t have credible and important information on them, they certainly can, but blogs are easy to create and keep anonymous. The credibility of this interview is shaky already.
Next, let’s look at the Obama campaign itself. For those who have been watching, Michelle, Barack and the team have been incredibly disciplined with the press during this campaign. In fact, one of Barack’s perceived strengths is his cool, calm demeanor. It’s more than a little suspect that Barack Obama would green light his wife Michelle calling up random bloggers across the globe in Africa to vent.
Truth is an important commodity on the Internet. With anonymity so easily achieved and widespread publication guaranteed, the Internet seems to breed a certain amount of trickery. This is understandable, given the circumstances. However, with all these sorts of cyber shenanigans taking place it is also imperative that the Internet user of today remain cautious and more than a little wary when sourcing information from the Internet. This tale, coming on as it does in the middle of a Presidential campaign, shows us that that old maxim “don’t believe everything you read” applies equally to the Internet.
It’s an old cliche, the beer goggles. The theory being that, after a few drinks (too many), things get a little blurry, and what you think you see you do not in fact see. There have been all sorts of strange, beautiful, awful, sad and happy things done while under the influence of any number of intoxicants, but now you can rest assured that if you use Gmail (Google’s popular email service) email won’t be one of them.
A clever engineer down in Mountain View, Jon Perlow, created “Mail Goggles” as a sort of sobriety test to help prevent sending that email to your ex at 2AM on Sunday morning (you know, THAT one …). What happens is that when you type a message and hit the send button you are presented with a series of math problems to solve in under a minute. The problems aren’t that difficult, but they do require the user to stop and think a moment. From the horse’s mouth:
Sometimes I send messages I shouldn’t send. Like the time I told that girl I had a crush on her over text message. Or the time I sent that late night email to my ex-girlfriend that we should get back together. Gmail can’t always prevent you from sending messages you might later regret, but today we’re launching a new Labs feature I wrote called Mail Goggles which may help.
When you enable Mail Goggles, it will check that you’re really sure you want to send that late night Friday email. And what better way to check than by making you solve a few simple math problems after you click send to verify you’re in the right state of mind?
By default, Mail Goggles is only active late night on the weekend as that is the time you’re most likely to need it. Once enabled, you can adjust when it’s active in the General settings.
Hopefully Mail Goggles will prevent many of you out there from sending messages you wish you hadn’t. Like that late night memo — I mean mission statement — to the entire firm.
The words “social network” bring to mind computers, college and high school students, job seekers, and probably a few company names like Facebook or MySpace. At least, to Western minds.
A recent article from MSNBC points out that social networks, and the Internet in general, are viewed much differently in Japan than in Western societies. For a long time we thought that the animal videos coming out of Japan were just a fluke, but it turns out they’re indicative of the culture on a larger scale:
YouTube is wildly successful here, but rare is the user who follows the site’s enticement to “Broadcast Yourself.” Posting pet videos is far more popular, and has bred a generation of animal celebrities.
{SNIP}
“There is the sense that, `My face just isn’t that interesting, or I’m not attractive — there is nothing special about me to show people,’” says Tetsuya Shibui, a writer who has long followed the Internet in Japan.
Indeed, the Japanese virtual world has turned out just like the real one.
People rarely give their first names to those they don’t know well. Spontaneous exchanges are uncommon even on the tightly packed trains and streets of Tokyo. TV news shows often blur the faces of those caught in background footage and photos to protect their privacy.
Of course, this is in great contrast to the United States, where we’re entitled to at least 15 minutes of fame during our lifetime, come hell or high water. One could argue that this tendency for exhibitionism has led to the success of social networks in the United States and Europe, and indeed, Japan’s notoriety for privacy has been cited as a reason that social networks don’t work the same way in that country:
The penchant for invisibility has made it hard for Western social networks to establish themselves. Belated forays into the Japanese market by Facebook Inc. and News Corp.’s MySpace, for instance, have failed to generate much of a buzz.
Google Inc., which operates YouTube, has tried to convince the Japanese to loosen up, running events in Tokyo in which girls in miniskirts roam the streets with giant picture frames and video cameras, soliciting pedestrians to frame themselves and record a clip for the site.
But it has since eased back on such efforts. YouTube’s latest campaign in Japan involves people uploading pictures of their pets.
“We can’t change the mindset of Japanese people,” says Tomoe Makino, in charge of partner development at YouTube’s Japan site. “It’s the uniqueness of Japanese culture — anonymous works in Japan.”
ReputationDefender Blog found a recent survey at MSNBC that highlights what most of us (at least in tech-central Silicon Valley) have known for some time: email is absolutely vital to being competitive and in touch. But the study also found that those advantages come with a cost: namely, work-life balance.
A study published Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that workers in general have mixed feelings about the increased use of e-mail and the Internet in the last few years.
In a survey of 2,134 adults in March and April, 96 percent used e-mail, the Internet or cell phones. Of them, 80 percent said these technologies have improved their ability to do their jobs, and 58 percent said these tools have given them more control over when to work.
But 46 percent also said these devices increase the demands that they work more hours, and 49 percent said that the technologies make it harder to disconnect from work when they should be off.
Half of the respondents who were employed and had e-mail said they check their work e-mail on weekends, and a full 22 percent said they checked office e-mail “often” on the weekends, up from 16 percent who said the same thing in 2002.
Much of the increase can be attributed to increased use of wireless e-mail devices like the BlackBerry, made by Research in Motion Ltd. Of those who have such gadgets, 40 percent say they often check work e-mail on weekends. A quarter often check in even when on vacation.
This writer can certainly attest to the proclivity of checking work email while on vacation. In fact, during a recent trip to Central Europe I had the distinct “pleasure” of attempting to establish a wireless network in a family apartment while trying to sort through Finnish, Serbian, Czech and Hungarian instructions for the devices involved so I could do just that. What do you think? Is email making us more productive or more stressed at work?
Two former officers of the police force in Durham, North Carolina are being investigated for alleged derogatory, and potentially racist, Web postings. While the details are not clear yet, the Chief of Police in Durham has stated that a “racial slur” is not the subject of the investigation, but this has done little to quell the outcry from civil rights groups.
