Redefining Privacy for the Internet

I’m not sure when the modern interpretation of privacy began, but it has definitely gained momentum in this new age of social networking. Mainstream news, the blogosphere and the twitterverse are constantly buzzing with the latest egregious privacy violations by companies, most notably Facebook. Many people are up in arms about the way the company conducts their business, turning your personal information into the essential ingredients of a revenue stream. But the reality is that privacy is mostly a modern invention and because of that the essence of its definition is still in debate. But I posit that a person can’t really care about privacy and be a member of these social networks in the first place. It’s not the thought of our privacy being violated, but our lack of understand of what people will do with that information.

The Internet has become a soapbox for most people, yours truly included. We broadcast our information to a community of listeners who offer feedback and their own series of updates. It’s the core of social networking. But we go through great lengths to control who can see that information. Menus upon menus of security screens and so called “privacy” settings allow us to tweak who our message is delivered to. With those privacy controls in mind, we can lose our “social filters”, the things we wouldn’t normally say aloud in a crowded room. Our true thoughts about our boss, disappointment in our loved ones and the embarrassing tidbits about your bowel movements are all fair game, thanks to privacy settings. But privacy from whom?

The moment we submit our information to the ether, it is stored and cataloged in a database in an unknown location, in an unknown format, accessible to an unknown tribe of people. The “security” that we discuss applies only to people using the application. Database admins have access to our data. Systems Analyst have access to our data. We give complete strangers access to our private messages that contain some of our most intimate details of life. For a lot of people, those messages contain the real you, not the you that is projected to society. We do this with complete freedom because….? Because we’re not connected to those strangers in anyway. They exist the same way God exists for some of us, an invisible overseer who is watching but isn’t judgmental. You risk your private moments because you feel safe in the assumption that the overseer has no use for it. Therefore it makes sense to say that privacy, as is commonly defined, isn’t your concern. Let’s change the scenario.

Instead of the invisible overseer being a nameless, faceless entity, let’s give him or her an identity. A distant cousin of your significant other works at Facebook. They don’t talk often, so its not like they share a relationship or anything. But does your use of the application change? Of course it does. Sending a private message via Facebook about something you don’t want your partner to know is no longer a safe means of communication. Even if it’s something as innocuous as planning a surprise birthday party. It’s not that the person has the information, it’s more the concern of what they’re going to do with it. Are they going to tell your partner? Might they hold it over your head? Post it on their own wall? The possibilities are endless, but more importantly they’re out of your control. Someone now has power over you because of the information they hold about you. It’s not the fact that they have it, it’s the unknown of what they’ll do with it. You may think this example is unfair, because we know the person in question. So we’ll again change the scenario.

Facebook is an ad supported service (like everything else around us). They make their money serving targeted ads based on information you provide them. This arrangement is buried inside the terms of service, but most of us don’t have the time or the education to read and comprehend it. We click “I Agree” blindly and just make the assumption that nothing nefarious is going on. As long as the data stays inside Facebook, we’re OK because whatever happens should be visibly apparent in my user experience. But when word gets out that Facebook is selling that information, then suddenly we get up in arms. All faceless entities are not equal. But what does the common user of Facebook base their trust of the company on? For most people, just the volume of active users is enough of an endorsement as to their trustworthiness. Most users would be surprised to learn just how untrustworthy Facebook has been in the past. We have an inherited trust of the company from other people we know. I trust Bob, Bob trusts Facebook, so Facebook must be trustworthy. We trust that Facebook won’t do anything bad with the information we give them. But if Facebook is selling the information to company B, then we have an issue. We don’t have that inherited trust with company B and we have no idea what company B intends to do with that data. Again it’s a faceless entity though. Why would they have any more use for my cooking recipes than Facebook? Why do I care that company B knows I have an embarrassing love for The Real Housewives of New Jersey? It’s not the possession of the information that scares us, it’s the usage of it.

With that said, you’d think as a community of users we’d be more interested in terms of service documents. What exactly are we agreeing to when we use these social networks? For many it would probably help to assuage the fears of providing information, if we in fact knew exactly what it would be used for. You’ll tell a total stranger at an insurance office what your social security number is, but if your brother asked you you’d immediately ask why. The intent of the information is clear in the former, but not apparently clear in the latter. Privacy isn’t about giving the information out, it’s about knowing the intended use of it. This information is spelled out in almost every service offered. We simply need to start taking the time to read it.

What are you agreeing to in the Facebook terms of service? Twitter? Google? More importantly ask yourself, what are you agreeing to by not knowing?

Posted in Internet | View Comments

Another Google Buzz Review

I told myself that I wouldn’t write a blog post about Google Buzz until I had time to play with it and let the dust settle from the frenzy of reviews during its launch week. It’s been a few weeks now and I have used Buzz almost daily, but so far it’s been a bit disappointing. Some of that blame belongs to Google and some of it is just the will of the Social Media Gods.

There were a couple of reasons that Buzz looked attractive to me and why I thought it might do some good. Its integration with Gmail allowed people to use it without having to go to another destination. As with a lot of great, but failed services, driving traffic and getting adoption early on is an important factor. It’s never about functionality or slickness. There were tons of better options to micro-blogging than Twitter. But Twitter won, simply because that’s where everyone is at. The old MySpace holdouts know what I’m talking about. Even if you prefered MySpace (honestly why would you though), your friends abandoned ship and starting flying the Facebook banner. Your move was just a matter of time. The beauty of Buzz was that it was already in your mailbox. You can’t help put click on an icon that says you have new messages. It’s a calling most of us can’t ignore.

My second reason was based on the first. I felt that more people would use it simply because it was already there. No need to sign up for anything new or go to a different site. My hope was that this would prompt people who I don’t actively use Twitter to get in on the conversation and share information they come across.

Well largely, these two things haven’t developed the way I hoped. Between Google fumbling on the privacy issue and the slow adoption rate by new users, my stream has become yet another source of the same data I’m getting on Twitter. Mind you, I don’t mean the same type of data, I mean the exact same data. (Their feed is linked basically)

The second reason is also a flaw. People who don’t use GMAIL can’t play. The school of thought sometimes is “Well why not just sign up for GMAIL”. If I was perfectly happy with my email provider, Buzz doesn’t offer much that would warrant such a big change for me. Maybe if it also made my coffee and pressed my pants, but unfortunately no dice there, so I can understand people’s reluctance to switch.

Will Buzz get better? Probably from a technology standpoint, but it’s very difficult to reclaim the trust of the web. The Internet is a 24×7 word of mouth factory. It’s a virtual water cooler where rumors, opinions and viewpoints spread quicker than the plague. If you don’t make a positive splash on launch your product may never the negative press. (See Windows Vista) Google has been dragged through the mud on privacy and on a lack of compelling features to leave Twitter. Creating a Buzz destination site could be helpful for those that don’t want to make the switch, but the GMAIL integration is a must and should remain intact.

I’m not turning off Buzz just yet, but the buzz is slowly fading into silence.

Posted in Internet | View Comments

Want to Support Conan? Watch His Show!

The Internet is always finding a cause to latch on to. A wrong to right and that justice be served. But sometimes the Internet gets behind a cause that makes it sound like an echo chamber of collective cry babies.  I’ve watched as the masses have flocked to the defense of Conan O’Brien. They’ve fought with their tweets and Facebook groups to show the big bad NBC just how they felt about it. But if we’re so supportive of Conan, why aren’t we watching his show?

NBC is a business. It’s not about tryouts and it’s not about “a fair shake” as shitty as that sounds. It’s about the bottom line, the almighty dollar. So why are we surprised by this? Any Joss Whedon fan knows that the vocal minority aren’t enough to make up for the fact that America isn’t watching. This same vocal minority is typically adverse to advertising too, so keeping the status quo is even less palpable to TV stations.

The common argument is that the outcries are coming from people who don’t watch Late Night in general, not specifically because of Conan. That’s a great point, in fact I’m in that same camp. (Which is why the decision won’t effect me) But there are plenty of people who do watch late night and according to the ratings, those people have stopped watching since Conan has taken over. I’m not a causation expert by any means, but I know that studio executives are looking at this as a cause/effect scenario. Their thinking is to put things back the way they were and see if they can at least reclaim their lost viewers. Isn’t this the basis of a free market? The market will react based on the interests of the individual?

If all the people that are up in arms about the cancellation are upset, they should watch Conan’s show. I’m not condoning what NBC has done. It’s the sign of a level of unprofessionalism that has probably existed long before the Internet was capable of dissemnating information in the blink of an eye. Conan has handled the situation admirably in But it’s part of the business and has been for awhile. I love that we have this medium to discuss our concern or our objections about things, but the real motivator is action that results in money. For consumer products, we vote with our dollar. For television we vote with our remotes.

If Twitter were around in 1994, I wonder if the Internet would have came to the aid of Toni Kukoc or Pete Meyers. After only 1 year of action they were benched because a guy named Michael Jordan decided to come out of retirement.

P.S. I understand that our rating system is flawed and not everyone who watches will have a Nielson Ratings box. We do need to improve our system for what it’s worth. The biggest thing is to make sure you accept a box when asked if you care what’s on TV. I know a few people who have refused them due to privacy or other concerns. It’s basically giving you the right to vote on what sucks on TV.

Posted in Internet, Television | View Comments

Why Celebrities Need Twitter

I was talking to Stephanie one day and she was telling me a story about her boss. He was returning from a trip to California when there was a bit of commotion near the security check point. A man was being followed by a small group, which appeared to be his entourage, and a gang of paparazzi. They asked if they could skip ahead of him in line and he obliged. It wasn’t until later that he found out it was Jon of the infamous “Jon and Kate Plus 8″ TLC series. While ultimately Jon’s scenario is a little different, this story got me thinking of the problems celebrities frequently run into and how one could take back their life using social media.

Exclusivity is probably the biggest driving force behind America’s obsession with celebrities. Americans (I’m generalizing) crave the scoop on their celebrity crushes. Where do they go? Who do they see? What are they doing when not on camera? Americans crave this, because it’s not information that’s generally available to them. Like any other resource in the world, scarcity creates value and that value is what produces things like US Weekly, National Enquirer and the ever annoying paparazzi.

But all the information we crave, is the same information that people liter twitter with. (OH I rhymed!) Imagine if you could connect with a celebrity, even if it was only one way. I’m not a celeb whore, but I have to admit that I get a kick out of knowing that Jay Cutler is in the film room watching some Cincinnati footage. (It didn’t help Jay) It gives me an odd sense of connection to Cutler. If I ran into him in the supermarket, I wouldn’t go all fanboy over him. He’s just Jay, a dude on Twitter who happens to have a really awesome job. Bad example? Let’s use our favorite (*gag*) twitter celeb aplusk or known to the rest of the world as Ashton Kutcher.

Ashton Kutcher has become somewhat of a Twitter maven these past few years. He and his seemingly ageless wife Demi Moore share quite a bit of themselves on twitter. Sometimes you’ll see a tweet about events they’re attending, what they’re doing for the day, even the occasional photo. By putting the information out to the masses, not only are they reducing the scarcity of these tidbits of information (therefore reducing the value) but they’re also capable of controlling what gets put out to the public. Nobody will pay $4.00 for a magazine with photos of Demi Moore grocery shopping when she’s putting other photos of herself in everyday life on the web, accessible to all for free.

By communicating with your fans/audience, you reduce the level of exclusivity. Exclusivity is what drives the majority of fandom. Sure you’ll still have your occasional nut job who wants to smell your socks but that’s showbiz. Celebrities need to begin controlling the information that gets out there and the best way to do that is to put the information out yourself. Twitter is a great way to do that and is easily accessible to your audience. No need to manage your friends or accept requests or setting up silly automated bots to handle it. It’s easy, it’s simple and it gives you the power to interact with your audience and adds some control to the information and images that are getting out there anyways. More celebrities need to realize that Twitter’s usage can go beyond branding. As crazy as it sounds, the tool many of them see as an invasion of privacy can lead to more privacy.

Posted in Social Media, Social Networking | View Comments

Apple Sucks at Web 2.0

Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. Let’s hope that Apple can stay away from becoming a trendy at producing bad Web 2.0 applications. I’ve always been disappointed with Mobile Me and its rather lackluster feature set via the web interface.

iWork.com has followed up with an even less impressive display of Web 2.0 savvy in their online document sharing tool for Apple’s office suite of products. But in a world with Google Docs, Office Online, cloud disk storage, simply providing a means to exchange documents isn’t enough. Here are my list of items that need to be fixed in both Mobile Me and iWork.com to make Apple even mentioned in the world of online solutions.

• On the web mobile mellow me to check IMAP mail from other services. Nobody wants an e-mail account associated with an annual fee
• Allow me to subscribe to calendars via the Mobile Me web interface as well
• $99 bucks a year and you give me 10 gigs of space? Really?
• Create plug-in support for other applications. Doesn’t have to be fully featured, but it be nice to have some sort of plugin-architecture where mobile me can really serve like a desktop
• iWork.com needs more collaboration features. Even if it’s just allowing me to download a doc, make changes and re-upload them. Allowing people to only make notes makes e-mail a far more efficient system
• It would be nice to be able to edit the document online, but I’ll settle for the revision control. Just want to be clear that online modification is still a desirable

While these aren’t the types of things that will make Mobile Me an overnight Google killer. They are however the things that need to happen for it to even be in the realm of possibilities. I love Google, but I”m still not signed up for this complete shift to the Web. I think Apple (or even Microsoft for that matter) is positioned well for the near future with a hybrid of desktop and web applications that can pass data back and forth. It’s probably more important for Apple due to Microsoft really being the standard around the globe. If I go to the library or need to do something from my job, I may not have access to a Mac.

iWork.com is still in Beta, so there is hope that before it goes gold that some of these features are implemented. As far as Mobile Me goes, I’ve always got the impression that it was a sort of pet project (much like the Apple TV) that doesn’t warrant the attention of Steve Jobs. And as Apple fans know, if Steve doesn’t care, neither does Apple.

Posted in Apple, Internet | View Comments

When Social Networks Lose Value

As the World Wide Web begins to expand our uses for it continue to expand, particularly in the realm of social networking. Our idea of a “friend” is also slowly being altered thanks to tools and applications that allow us to maintain “friendships” with minimal effort. I put friendships in quotes because of the rapid ease in which we begin to assign a once coveted title. The rules for friendships are beginning to change. But with that change in rules we start to tier our friendships. This isn’t anything particularly new, just expanded. (Everyone had a BEST friend) But with the onslaught of information we’re sharing it’s becoming increasingly difficult to keep it all together.

For me, Twitter served as a means to keep in touch with a lot of people I didn’t know and even to make some new friends. Facebook was intended to keep in touch with my real world friends, mainly because it was the tool I figured most of them would be using. But now that these worlds are starting to mix it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to keep up with the folks that are part of my real world life. Not to say that my digital friends are lesser (here comes that hierarchy again), but the expectations of a friend are substantially different in the digital versus analog world. It’s easy to tell when those digital relationships take on higher meaning, because you begin to convert them (or add them) to your analog world.

So I’ve been trying to figure out a way to stay in touch with as many of my analog friends as possible, using tools that are helpful to me. As much as I like Twitter, the signal-to-noise ratio is becoming less and less acceptable. I’m not sure how others do it, but I know that I don’t have time to stay engaged with Twitter in a way that’s both beneficial to me and my followers AND doesn’t feel like work. So far it seems like Friend Feed and Facebook are the two best options for me.

Friend Feed looks particularly attractive because it’s an aggregator of many sites and it has the added bonus of not requiring a user to actual be a part of Friend Feed in order for you to aggregate their data. (Check out the Imaginary Friends section of FF) It also has a pretty easy way for me to approve of other users content via the like or dislike option. A lot of Twitter clients also support Friend Feed, so there are more options out there than I would have originally guessed. The problem I have with Friend Feed in its current role in my line up is that I have no real reason to go to it. I don’t post any information there, it’s just an aggregator for me. But if I’m not there to post data, I’m not there to browse data. It’s a vicious circle. If I can commit to making my updates on Friend Feed and choose which data services cross post then that could be one problem solved. Friend Feed also has pretty good support for Lists. Lists allow me to categorize different types of friends so that it’s easier to keep track of them. It’s very much like group services in Twitter that you see in clients like TweetDeck, Nambu or the new Twitteriffic 2.0 software. The major difference is that the list functionality is built into the application, making it widely available on all the different client types. If I’m in a rush and only have a few minutes on my mobile device, I may only check in on my analog friends to see what’s going on.

Then there’s Facebook. The mac daddy of them all. Facebook met most of my needs except two main things. The first is the lack of a variety of clients. You’re pretty much using the website or the iPhone application. It be nice to have a tool that would allow me to do small quick things like looking at News Feeds and posting status updates. I know the Facebook iPhone app does that now, but the more clients, the more innovation and the more options. Facebook doesn’t look like it has any real grouping options, but it does let me hide news feed updates, which is helpful. Nothing is worse than missing a piece of valuable information in your news feed because some dumb ass from high school thought it would be cool to post all her photos from her drinking weekend. The other option is to simply not follow people I don’t have a serious vested interest in. Sure you’re excited to catch up when your first crush ever friends you on Facebook. But once you find out where they’re at in life now, the novelty kind of wears off, but you’re still stuck with their updates.

How do you manage all your social networks and still maintain valuable relationships?

p.s. And after writing this I spoke with a friend who told me about “Lists” in Facebook too. So now Facebook might very well be a more useful tool to me.

Posted in Social Networking | View Comments

Twitter: Knife or Screwdriver?

The butter knife, a part of every person’s kitchen, is a tool.  The most common usage for this tool is to spread butter, jams, jellies, peanut butter and a million other toppings on something. Well at least that’s how I use a butter knife. But how many of you have used this same utensil as a flat head screw driver in a pinch? Or used it to jimmy a door open when you lock your keys inside? Or decided to play a joke on your roomie by dropping it in the toilet and then placing it next to his morning toast? The butter knife is the same tool, but the user has modified its use based on the users circumstances.

Social media and this explosion of openness and entirely TMI on the web isn’t indicative of the tool, but how people have decided to use the tool. Lets take Twitter for example. I have a group of friends in New York who use Twitter amongst their private circle to share information, plan events, etc. They’re not really interested in finding people they don’t know and getting random updates about lives more mundane than their own. They took the tool of Twitter and used it in a way that fits their needs and circumstances.

Sticking with that example lets say a member of this group of friends is a private guy and protects his updates.  He doesn’t want the world to know that he’s just been assaulted by mutant tigers on his way to Jiffy Lube, but he wants a quick easy way to share that information with the friends he’s trusted. He’s extended that trust by allowing them to follow him. Is that breaking the rules? Should we get to decide how someone shares information about them? Is this in the Twitter Terms of Service? (I haven’t read it)

Why do people chastise others for how they use Twitter?  That’s the beauty of it, if you don’t like how someone is using the tool then why are you following them? Lets say someone you follow regurgitates Tupac lyrics and passes them off as famous Bob Barker quotes. That could get annoying really quickly. So why not unfollow them? Sounds like a simple solution to me. I try to make the rules for social networking the same rules I would use in real life. If you don’t like the conversation, move to another table or simply don’t partake in the conversation

If I’m at a bar with 3 of my friends and we’re cursing and talking about bare breasted Olympic pole vaulters, would you seriously come in and tell us how to conduct our conversation? How we should be communicating with one another? No, you’d either join in and accept how we communicate or you’d walk away and move to another table.

Some people aren’t promoting a blog or a podcast or a web project. Not everyone is looking to have their voice heard by as many people as possible. Some people just want to stay connected with friends and family. Some just want to keep a running log of their moods throughout the day. I think they should be allowed to do that if that’s what they choose.

Posted in Highlights, Social Media, Social Networking | View Comments

Anonymous PS3 Cowards (WARNING: Offensive and Coarse Language Below)

I love playing video games especially online with other people. It is a cathartic release, it is therapeutic, and when you play on a large HDTV, heavenly. Nothing beats getting a few of your buddies together for a little ass-kicking and name taking. There isn’t anything about online playing that I hate in particular with a few exceptions; cultural/racial insults.

Last night, my best man/downstairs neighbor and I were playing Team Deathmatch on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare for PS3. After waiting several moments for Sony’s crappy-ass servers to connect us to an open match, we finally entered a game. To my chagrin, a thin, nasally suburban waste of sperm and egg who calls himself DeltaDawne86 was spouting, “NiggerNiggerNiggerNigger” over and over again. I hoped to God this punk wouldn’t be on our team so I could pump round after round of virtual lead into this ignoramus’ skull but not this time. He was on our team. I should have just muted him and been done with it but I didn’t. My mistake.

The next words out of this renaissance ass were directed to my teammate and neighbor. “I bet Play2Ruff is a nigger.” I lost it.

“If you ever met him, he would fuckin’ eat you!” His response to me? “You must be a nigger too. Shut up nigger, it isn’t nigger-talk time, it’s nigger-shut-up time! You talk when I say talk!” Now, I am a peaceful person and am just as tolerant of people’s idiosyncrasies and idiocy but hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet to insult someone with such vitriol and ignorance pissed me off. I replied, “Sure, hide behind your anonymity and say what you want. I wish you could say that shit to me in person.” He continued his racist rants and as my friend retorted with insults back, I said, “I’m not tolerating this bullshit. I’m out.” and disconnected.

My wife looked at me and said, “It’s only a game, honey.” She couldn’t hear what this inbred SOB was saying since it went to my earpiece so I explained what happened and she sat there stunned. “Why are people such assholes?” A question that I am still asking myself this morning. And to hear people state, “Look at the new President-Elect. This nation isn’t racist.” I beg to differ. Deep rooted racism exists even in the virtual world where no one knows your name.

The online gaming community is not a soapbox for political discourse, racial name-calling, prejudice, or ignorance. It is a place for like-minded people to enjoy playing games together as a COMMUNITY. It is not a klan rally, a call for Jihad, or racial cleansing. Dirty dozens, I can handle, ignorance and hate, I cannot. Grow a pair you punks. Peace all.

Posted in Games, Highlights, Internet, Video Games | View Comments

Last Blood: The Little WebComic that Could

I love gripping tales even if they employ the same formulaic settings and situations since a majority of times, they are spun in an unique or progressive fashion. Take for instance a zombie title like Robert Kirkman’s The Walking Dead, a phenom title with a creative play on who the walking dead are; the human protagonists seeking refuge from zombies who are also the walking dead but not in the same sense as the metaphorical title implies. Using a haunting sense of claustrophobia within the already confined panels of this wonderfully paced comic makes you care about the characters’ dilemmas and fragile mind states. So how do you top a formulaic story with interesting and deep characterizations?

With a webcomic named Last Blood by writer Bobby Crosby and artist Owen Giani which is about a group of vampires protecting the last group of humans from zombies to ensure mutual survival and a reboot of the human race. Think of Blade (the films) without the one-note performance of Wesley Snipes. Our ragtag group of humans are not exactly groundbreaking but what differentiates this title from Kirkman’s is the retro 80s vibe of fanzine meets the internet as well as the fact that it is being made into a movie. Yes, a webcomic is being made into a movie. Surprised?

I give it 3 out of 4 plastic sleeves and consider it a great way to end the last half an hour of your day. So go hit that Last Blood url up, read it, enjoy it, and next time, we’re going to talk about Y the Last Man and why D.J. Caruso and Shia LaBeouf shouldn’t be part of it.

Posted in Comic Books, Internet | View Comments

Digital Copies Almost Got It Right

I really like the option of getting a digital copy of a movie when you buy it on Blu-ray. (I’m not sure if this is also available on DVD or not) For those that don’t know, a lot of Blu-Ray movies these days are allowing you to also get a digital copy of the movie. So when you buy the movie, you get a CD with a redemption code on it. You put it in, input your code and the movie downloads from iTunes free of charge.

This solves some of the major problems with digital distribution. That being that some (including myself) just dont’ feel comfortable with their library being entirely 0′s and 1′s. I know it’s the exact same concept as music, but for some reason with music it just FEELS more acceptable. Part of that feeling is probably due to the large amounts of hard drive space needed to store your digital movie library. Unless I buy hard drives by the palette, it’s difficult for me to keep my entire library available via digital copy.

With this being said, the digital copy solution offers a great opportunity for people to be introduced to downloaded movies. But I suggest that we reverse the process. Why not allow me to buy the digital copy via iTunes so I can watch it immediately and then ship me the physical copy? This just seems so much more intuitive to me. I would love to be sitting on my couch, surfing for a movie and decide to buy it, knowing I’ll have a physical copy on my door in days. Add in a little option for me to select DVD or Blu-Ray and it would be downright heaven.

This makes much more sense to me.

Posted in Internet | View Comments