michaelfertik: @FionaGraham Amen. Got out of airport in almost three hours; less time to fly from Stockholm! Immigration was 1:48.
michaelfertik: @britishairways pls add pressure to @ukhomeoffice on immigration at Heathrow: longer to leave airport than to fly from Stockholm. #badforuk
michaelfertik: @ukhomeoffice 1 hour 48 minutes to clear immigration and clearly your team were working hard. #getmoreguys
In today’s Quick Hits, we share a new development in Missouri’s hotly-debated law that prohibited teachers from friending students online, opinions on Facebook’s new privacy controls, and guidelines from the National Labor Relations Board on proper Facebook firing etiquette.
FOX News reports that, “a Missouri judge has blocked a law restricting Internet communications between teachers and students from taking effect Sunday,” confirming criticism from some legal experts that criticized the law as overly broad and unconstitutional. The law was ostensibly created to limit sexual contact between teachers and students, but could also be interpreted to forbid teachers from having any presence on social networking websites.
The number of libel cases citing social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter more than doubled in the UK in the last year. According to the Telegraph, “the rise has been disclosed as social networking websites become the new front line in the debate over Britain’s libel laws” In the UK, strong privacy laws have generally prevented the rich and wealthy from having secrets exposed in the media, but the prevalence and anonymous nature of social networking websites has made these laws ineffectual.
This week, Facebook began rolling out an extensive overhaul of its privacy controls, leading to much debate in the online security and privacy community. ZDNet reports that while the “overall consensus is that this is a step forward” some security experts “still have mixed feelings” about the change. The security company Sophos articulated the general concern, writing in a statement that Facebook “missed an opportunity to lead the way on privacy” and should “become truly opt-in” if it wants to enact meaningful change for consumers.
In a well-written and well-researched article for Forbes, Kashmir Hill discusses the National Labor Relations Board’s recent recommendations regarding when companies can and can’t fire employees for negative online content. As Kashmir explains, “all private employers must respect their workers’ right to ‘protected concerted activity.’” In other words, if an employee is complaining about his or her working conditions, the speech is protected.
Brands are increasingly using social media to connect with customers, but what they’re really interested in is connecting with influencers. As this article from the Telegraph explains, “social media are changing at such a pace that attracting vast numbers of ‘likes’ and ‘followers’ are no longer enough to help brands stand out from the crowd. Now it is all about tapping in to people’s digital status and identifying key ‘influencers.’” As a part of this shift in marketing thinking, many start-ups are attempting to assign reputation and influences scores to individuals to help brands target the right social media users.
In today’s Quick Hits, we share the fallout from a college golf team’s provocative Facebook photo, the story of a gangster’s Facebook undoing, and information on a new privacy lawsuit against the tracking firm comScore.
The Bethany College men’s golf team thought it would be a pretty good gag to take a team picture in the nude, with only golf equipment covering their (ahem) putters. When they posted the picture on Facebook, however, they quickly earned the wrath of their coach and school officials who suspended the team from playing in three upcoming tournaments. The team’s captain is appealing the decision.
Many Facebook users go out of their way to keep their profiles hidden from job recruiters, but this Reuters article suggests that Facebook recruiting may be the wave of the future for hiring managers. Thanks to Facebook’s extensive built-in social networks, making referrals for jobs would be much easier, just one of the many reasons why hiring managers might find Facebook recruiting useful.
An Italian mobster was tracked down and arrested in Spain after his girlfriend posted pictures to Facebook that gave away the pair’s precise location. According to The Daily Mail, the woman “published several photos on Facebook of her outside upmarket Marbella nightspot Nikki Beach Club where the couple were staying” allowing police to swoop in and arrest the individual with no resistance. The mobster had been on the run for nearly a decade when he was discovered.
The online tracking company comScore has been charged with “surreptitiously collecting Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, passwords and other data from consumer systems” according to a new lawsuit filed in federal court. According to ComputerWorld, “the lawsuit characterized comScore’s software as intrusive surveillance tools that allowed the company to monitor every keystroke and every action taken by a user on the Internet.” A comScore spokesman has called the lawsuit meritless and pledged that the company would fight it.
Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is asking Canadian citizens to be more careful with their mobile phones following a survey which revealed that “just four in 10 [respondents] use password locks on their mobile devices or adjust their settings to limit access to personal information stored on such gadgets.” Stoddart has been one of the world’s foremost personal privacy advocates and has helped Canada lead the charge in forcing companies to improve online privacy protections for consumers.
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about Google’s historic settlement over illegal ads, how social media use is linked to higher levels of substance abuse in teens, and what Facebook’s new privacy settings mean for users.
In one of the largest settlements in U.S. history, Google has agreed to pay 0 million in damages after a Department of Justice investigation determined that the company violated U.S. laws by allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise and sell drugs to U.S. consumers. Google has suspended this practice and apologized for the advertisements.
According to a new survey commissioned by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, teenaged social network users were “five times more likely to report using tobacco (10 percent versus 2 percent), three times more likely to say they used alcohol (26 percent versus 9 percent) and twice as likely to admit using marijuana (13 percent versus 7 percent).” It’s important to note that the survey doesn’t show a causal link between social media and substance abuse, but that certain elements of social networking can contribute to relaxed attitudes about alcohol and drug use.
In an article for HR Magazine, Paul Deakin argues that screening job applicants based on their social media profiles causes hiring managers to prejudge candidates unfairly and should be banned. Quoting Deakin, “By their very nature, social networking sites are not naturally respectful of privacy, reputation and control which is something both HR professionals and job applicants should take into account.”
According to The Register, “Microsoft has deleted code on its MSN website that secretly logged visitors’ browsing histories across multiple web properties, even when the users deleted browser cookies to elude tracking.” These so-called “supercookies” are practically impossible to opt out from and have drawn considerable criticism from privacy advocates.
The Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog has a good report on Facebook’s new privacy controls and how they will affect Facebook users. Reputation.com shared a first look at Facebook’s new privacy controls in a blog post yesterday.
Only a few months after Google rolled out its highly-praised new social network Google+, which put privacy and controlled sharing at the forefront, Facebook has made sweeping changes to its own privacy controls.
Taking a cue from Google+, Facebook has redesigned its privacy controls to be much clearer and easier to use. As Facebook explains in a blog post, “Your profile should feel like your home on the web – you should never feel like stuff appears there that you don’t want, and you should never wonder who sees what’s there.”
To this end, Facebook has moved all privacy controls from a separate page (which was hard to locate for many Facebook users) to being inline, next to your posts, photos, and other Facebook updates. Essentially, you’ll be able to choose who sees your posts every time you create something new.
As shown in the picture below, Facebook offers three sharing options by default (Public, Friends, and Custom). Once you choose a setting, it will become your default setting for all posts until you choose to switch it. If you want to switch a post from one setting to another after you’ve posted it, you can make that change.
In addition to moving privacy controls inline, Facebook has also made it so that users must approve when they are tagged in photographs. Previously, if another user tagged you in a photo, it appeared on your profile without your consent. Now, you must consent to having the picture posted to your profile. If you don’t consent, the picture may still appear on your friend’s profile, but Facebook has built an automatic mechanism to ask your friend to remove the picture.
These changes should be rolling out to Facebook users in the next few days. Reputation.com will have a more thorough report on them at that time. In general, however, it is safe to say that these privacy controls are a big improvement over Facebook’s previous efforts and give users much more explicit control over what they post online.
Of course, users still must realize that the information they share online can become public by a variety of means — accidental, malicious, or otherwise. That’s why Reputation.com recommends uProtect.it, the only application that protects your information on Facebook from Facebook.
For a more detailed look at Facebook’s new privacy controls, check out this excellent slideshow from Business Insider.
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about “Cyber Shame,” one photographer’s stand against cyberbullying, and the White House’s consumer privacy protection plans.
“More than a third of young people admit to feeling ‘cyber shame’ after posting embarrassing photos or posts online while drunk” according to a survey commissioned by the alcohol education charity Drinkaware. In addition to the physical dangers of excessive drinking, Chris Sorek, CEO of Drinkaware, notes that there are also reputation consequences to posting drunk photos online. Sorek explains that living in the digital world “means that people who have been drinking to excess can have their actions come back to haunt them online,” particularly when it comes to getting a new job and other important life transactions.
A Pennsylvania photographer has become an unlikely spokesperson in the country’s growing crusade against bullying after she refused to photograph several high school girls whom she observed on a Facebook page bullying other students. In a note on Facebook, Jennifer McKendrick wrote that she didn’t want to make people who were ugly on the inside look beautiful on the outside. Since making her stand, McKendrick has received broad support from anti-bullying advocates across the country.
The Sydney Morning Herald writes, “consumers are increasingly turning to Twitter and Facebook to vent their frustrations at having their complaints ignored as online activism becomes a powerful tool forcing businesses to fix unresolved issues.” Citing several examples where online activism has forced company’s to change their operating procedures, the Herald article highlights an important new reality for businesses of all sizes. In a world where customers can talk directly to brands, it’s important that brands listen and talk back.
In an article for InformationWeek, Thomas Claburn argues that Google’s real name policy for its new social network Google+ is a mistake, offering five reasons why it hurts users. Claburn’s argument echos other complaints from tech writers who view Google’s name policy as a mistake and argue that it stifles open discourse online.
Danny Weitzner, associate administrator at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently outlined the White House’s plans for improving consumer privacy without stifling innovation in the economy. During comments at a Technology Policy Institute conference, Weitzner said, “You can have stronger privacy law, clearer rules, clearer principles established in law, without the costs and downsides of a traditional regulatory structure.” How privacy rules would be regulated without a traditional regulatory structure remains to be seen, but the notion of a broad “Privacy Bill of Rights” still seems to be popular in Washington, D.C.
In today’s Quick Hits, we talk about a lawsuit intended to overturn a new law preventing teachers from “friending” students online and why Facebook and dating don’t always mix.
The Missouri State Teacher’s Association has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new law preventing teachers from interacting with students on Facebook and other social media websites. The law, which has been described as unconstitutional by Internet law expert Daniel Solove, was created to discourage teachers and students form having inappropriate sexual relationships, but has been criticized as overly broad by teachers’ groups. The law is set to go into effect on August 28th.
This article from The Campbell Reporter discusses how young teens are embracing “the raunchy, rude lingo of cyberspace” and what teachers are doing to help students exercise more responsibility online. Quoting the article, “Educators increasingly are joining in to challenge the crude culture of social networks, which they fear unleashes cyberbullying and sexting, heightens the social drama of puberty and teaches the wrong values.” Citing a number of examples from the San Francisco Bay Area, the article shares how digital literacy and education programs, along with anti-bullying legislation, have been proposed to help kids stay safe on the Web.
People might say and do stupid things on Facebook, but when they’re using Facebook to leave a comment on a website, they smarten up. According to Jimmy Orr at the Los Angeles Times, whose paper has been using Facebook comments and traditional anonymous comments side-by-side, the difference in the quality of discourse from Facebook commenters was “stunning.” Orr owes the improved comments to the fact that Facebook requires users to provide their real name. When individuals know that their real name and reputation is tied to their comments, they are more careful and less combative online.
Huffington Post advice columnist Michael Cohen answers three questions about the often confusing intersection of Facebook and relationships. For the most part, Cohen’s advice is to keep Facebook out of relationships, especially when dating, so as not to show off your entire life before you can even get to know your would-be date.
This interesting article from TIME explores how parents help their kids access Internet websites by lying about their age. Because of the federal law COPPA, children under the age of 13 aren’t allowed to access certain websites. However, some parents believe that there is value in giving their kids access to social networking websites like Facebook and Google+. The TIME piece discusses how Google’s efforts to keep a 10-year-old from accessing his Google+ profile led to his father setting up the boy’s account in his name.
This week, Google rolled out a significant expansion of sitelinks, capping years of experimentation on the search feature. The changes have kicked off a big debate in the SEO community about how companies may be helped or hurt by the expanded sitelinks.
For those unfamiliar with sitelinks, they are links that appear underneath a search result that link to a sub-section of a website. As its “Inside Search” blog reveals, Google has been tweaking sitelinks since 2006, going from a small single line of sitelinks to the most recent version, which gives each sitelink its own full-size search result.
If you can’t see the expanded sitelinks yet, here are some illustrations using popular websites as examples.
Some people, like Marketing Pilgrim’s Frank Reed, think that the new sitelinks are overkill. Others, like some of the commenters at Search Engine Land, argue that the sitelinks are fine, if only Google would allow site owners to change sitelinks via Google’s Webmaster Tools. The one thing everyone agrees on, however, is that the new-look sitelinks make it even more important for brands (and personal brands) to secure the number one spot in Google search results and maintain interesting, content-rich websites.
What Google’s sitelinks change represents more than anything else is that the Web is constantly in flux. People will always turn to the Internet to find information — about the weather, about a new restaurant, or even about you. The way that people access that information, however, will change. In order to stay on top of your online reputation, it is important to stay current on the way search engines and social networks index and share information.
That’s what we’ve been doing at Reputation.com since 2006, and it’s what we’ll continue to do now and in the future.