Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

On the heels of Robert Scoble calling out Facebook for an alleged “erasure,” Danah Boyd shares the sad tale of a “Google horror story,” claiming a third party “disappearance.”

While both Scoble and Boyd do a fine job of tugging at the Web’s heart strings, both cases cloud data security issues in the cloud. Here at Insider Chatter, I have advised of the unavoidable user privacy and data security risks inherent in the use of both Facebook and Google services, and warn non-tech savvy users about using the dangerous services.

In both the Scoble and Boyd’s anonymous “Bob” case, however, both Facebook and Google have appeared to act in the privacy and security interests of their large numbers of non-paying “customers,” attempting to neutralize potentially nefarious affects of dangerous acts (intentional or otherwise) emmanating from the accounts of individual, tech savvy users.

What’s more, in both the Scoble and Boyd’s anonymous “Bob” case, both Facebook and Google restored the free accounts, intact, in a timely manner. Contrary to the sensationalist headlines, Scoble was not “erased” by Facebook and Bob was not “disappeared” by Google.

“Bob” corrects the Boyd story in comments to the post: “I’m the Bob in question. To be fair to Google, it’s unclear if the connections were the reason my account was restored (within 3 days). I filled out the “account hijacked” form several times (advice on the discussion group was to do it every day). And the support email did not come from an individual at Google, but the “team.” So either it was at the guiding hand of one of my friends’ connections and they aren’t taking credit, or I had a really good experience with the standard customer service.”

“Bob” also laments that he ought to have known better, given his technology expertise:

I’m a very experienced internet user, which is part of why I’ve asked not use my name. I’m the -last- person that should be a phishing victim, yet it happened to me. Since it happens to internet professionals far less than, say, the clueless relatives of internet professionals, of course we blame it on the user.

The very expertise of “Bob” and Robert, though, begs the question as to why they are even entrusting free Facebook and Google consumer services with anything!

“Mike” undersocres in the comments: “IMO you should never let a third party (especially electronically) maintain any personal information or data which you wouldn’t want disclosed.”

YES, and one should also not willingly provide such data to such a third party which maintains it in perpetuity with no abillity to correct, modify and or permanently delete the data from all of the third party’s systems, as both the Facebook and Google Privacy Policies and Terms Of Use suggest.

An eternal data trap is the REAL Google and Facebook nightmare and there is only one sure way to avoid it: Don’t use such free, consumer services which do not offer adequate privacy policies and terms of use.

Legislation is not necessary to “protect” users from willy nilly willingly handing over their own personal, proprietary information and data to the greedy “free” servers of for (big) profit corporations, common sense is.

Facebook is NOT a public service, nor is it a necessary one: It can very well be a dangerous service, though. Scoble and “Bob” lessons learned ought to be to STOP using Facebook and Google free login services, not to demand government “protection” from them.

Concerned about Gmail? Get your own domain email account. Concerned about data backup? Use for-fee, professional third party services that guarantee it, in writing. Concerned about not being able to permanently delete data from third party, “free” non-professional servers? Don’t put your information in such places.

Facebook and Google login services are not constitutional rights, they are optional, free, opt-in, corporate services, which adult users of the Internet are free to use, at their own risk.

ALSO: LinkedIn Preps Spy Network: Is YOUR Company Safe?

MORE: Facebook Davos PR Blitz: Beware Scoble Hype, Users Still at BIG Risk and
2008 Social Media Warning: Beware Google AND Facebook and
MySpace to Facebook: Where is Your ‘Reach, Relevancy, Results’? OMMA Report and
Facebook is ‘Sorry’? Savvy Users Will Forget, NOT Forgive, Mark Zuckerberg and
Beacon Privacy Solution: STOP USING FACEBOOK! and
Dear Facebook, Beacon Tracking STILL Evil: Will Zuckerberg Partners Repent? and
Facebook STILL a Danger to Children: Zuckerberg, Attorney General Cuomo in PR Push and
Mark Zuckerberg: Use Facebook at Your Own Risk! and
With Facebook Platform as a Developer Friend, Who Needs Enemies? and
Startups: Why Facebook Platform is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing 

Google Warning: How GOOG 411 Tricks Consumers and
Google Privacy Trap: Consumers Beware and
Google is WRONG On Consumer Privacy and
Google is NOT Your Friend 

PLUS: How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and Yahoos Rally: Beware Sticky Peanut Butter Tales

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Think Mark Zuckerberg’s Beacon is scary? Reid Hoffman has some user “tracking” of his own in store.

In November, The Washingotn Post reported the sad tale of how Facebook “ruined” Facebooker Sean Lane’s Christmas when Mark Zuckerberg conspired with Overstock to alert his “friends,” including his wife, of his happy (supposedly surprise) purchase of a diamond ring, for his wife.

Reid Hoffman may soon have some (serious) unwelcome surprises of his own, for the thousands of companies represented within the “rich profile data” of “17 million professionals” hailed by LinkedIn as the “largest group of business decision makers on the Web.”   

LinkedIn’s Mike Gamson is touting an impending fee-based “Research Network” aimed at capitalizing on the reams of data LinkedIn houses on those millions of people:

The service will help hedge fund managers and investment banks find people who used to work at a company they’re interested in, or even who is working for a customer of a company they are interested in. (as cited by eWeek)

In other words, insider corporate intelligence, or espionage:

Let’s say I’m thinking about making an investment in a producer of product X. I might want to speak to people that sell that product, people that buy that product, or that used to work at that company as part of my research process to have a better understanding of how valuable that product is.

BUT, “let’s say” the “producer of product X” does NOT want current or past employees talking to hedge funds and investment banks about its proprietary, confidential, insider goings on. LinkedIn’s financial incentives to its “17 million professionals” may nevertheless be hard to resist. Gamson boasts, “If we can begin to help our members make money and help our clients find the right people, that’s when you create value on both sides and we like those situations.”

Corporations about which LinkedIn users divulge insider information to hedge funds and investment banks, however, will undoubtedly NOT “like those situations.”

Barron’s Business Dictionary on corporate espionage: 

Act of spying. An example is spying on the activities of another company by improperly gathering information about the competing company’s new products or practices. Usually the spy is paid a fee for the information obtained.

The danger of corporate espionage, according to The SANS Institute: 

Corporate espionage is a threat to any business whose livelihood depends on information. The information sought after could be client lists, supplier agreements, personnel records, research documents, prototype plans for a new product or service. Any of this information could be of great financial benefit to a scrupulous individual or competitor, while having a devastating financial effect on a company. Just about any information gathered from a company could be used to commit scams, credit card fraud, blackmail, extortion or just plain malice against the company or the people who work there.

In Web-based social networking, six figure Fortune 500 execs seek the discretion and confidentiality that LinkedIn uniquely offers, Reid Hoffman has indicated to me. The “LinkedIn Research Network” appears to thwart such desired privacy, however.

The “LinkedIn Research Network” also appears to contradict the spirit of LinkedIn’s Privacy Policy which asserts “We will never sell, rent, or otherwise provide your personally identifiable information to any third parties for marketing purposes.” How then will LinkedIn market its “Research Network” company-specific “expertise”?

What’s more, LinkedIn’s “primary research service” risks impacting non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements and insider trading restrictions.

Linkedin claims a “simple philosophy”: relationships matter. YES, but the way relationships are monetized matters as well.    

MORE: AP On LinkedIn: Social Networking Gold Mine at $5 per User? and Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn About Face (book) and Beacon Privacy Solution: STOP USING FACEBOOK! and Multiply.com CEO to Facebook, MySpace: STOP Claiming to be Real-Life Social Networks, INTERVIEW

PLUS: Google Apps Meets Les Miserables: Enterprise IT Team DREAMS Big and Why Silicon Alley VCs Should Do Blogging Due Diligence, Too

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Mark Zuckerberg and Robert Scoble ARE meant for each other!

Why does Facebook make young men swoon? I analyzed way back when (September 2007). To start the New Year, on the heels of the Scobleizer’s unauthorized intrusion into Facebook property, I pointed out “Robert Scoble’s Facebook heaven turns to hell,” Beware Extreme Evangelism, underscoring the on again-off again, here today, gone tomorrow, Scoble whale of a love-hate relationship with Facebook.

First, Scoble declared an unabashed, but insufficiently researched, love for Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, imploring the world to join HIS Facebook world, deemed by the Scobleizer to be the future of the world. Lo and behold, though, Scoble tired of his newfound Facebook love faster than a New York minute.

Scoble to Mark Cuban: “I’ve just given up on managing this stuff. Which is just as well cause now I’m getting more work done.”

Scoble’s Zuckerberg ennui then quickly turned to Facebook unrest, with a helping nudge from Plaxo, a company with ambitions to profit from its own idea of the “next-generation social network.”

Rather than soliciting all to share in his once Facebook love, Scoble’s Facebook New Year cry turned to one of passionate public indignation, deploring Zuckerberg’s unlitateral corporate power to “erase” a Scobleizer trail for a few moments from publicly accessible servers owned by Facebook.

What does it take to “erase” Scoble’s supposed fury over Zuckerberg’s modus operandi?  A personal invitation by the “shy” Zuckerberg to Davos breakfast together with Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf.

Scoble’s commenters have been commenting on his chameleon Facebook flip-flopping and inconsistent editorializing:

CALI LEWIS (re: Scoble’s claims of Facebook “erasing”): Robert, you embrace and endorse third party services all the time. You’re blog is stored on Wordpress.com rather than using the amazing Wordpress software on your own hosted site. If you don’t host it, IMO, you don’t own it. You’re giving a lot of content to companies that may or may not have your best interest in mind.

Facebook sucks. Your endorsement of it almost got me interested, but ultimately, I can’t except a social network owning my stuff when it’s just as easy to get a domain name, get hosting and keep control. When I speak to kids in college. I tell them to register a domain and buy hosting and work to own their stuff. You should do the same thing. If you do, you’ll never get banned.

DON (re: Scoble’s endorsement of “shy” Mark Zuckerberg): The funny part is that you didn’t discuss your “wrongful” termination, nor the other issues your readers discussed, like the inability to get reinstated, nor the inability to commit “facebook suicide” and remove your content when you wish. That is why your article seems fawning and shallow to me.

Scoble says he did discuss such “other issues.” The net of Scoble’s discussion, though? Facebook PR speak:

“But he didn’t yet have answers as to just what Facebook will allow in the future,” Scoble demeured.

EXACTLY! Zuckerberg and Scoble are better off after their mutual win-win Davos turn, but citizen Facebook users are still in the same old Zuckerberg “no answers yet” boat. Beware Scoble’s Facebook advice, however, as he is now, post-Davos Zuckerberg tete a tete, firmly and supposedly for ever more in the Facebook camp:

This post sounds fawning, I know. But Zuckerberg demonstrated to me that he is, indeed, the real deal and that the hype he’s gotten over the past year has largely been deserved. He definitely won me over. Imagine what’ll he get done when he gets over his shyness.

WHO IS HYPING WHOM NOW? What “real deal” was demonstrated to Scoble by Zuckerberg over a PR breakfast aimed at “winning over” the Scobleizer? Facebook PR mission accomplished. Scoble reposted, seemingly verbatim, the official Zuckerberg PR lines, which did not contain any substantively new, concrete information. Outside of the Facebook VIP treatment he was accorded, there is no “real” reason apparent for Scoble’s latest dramatic editorial turn.

Moreover, there is NO need to imagine what Zuckerberg has in store for his users, as I have been underscoring since Scoble’s new found “shy” Facebook buddy unveiled F8 to the world. FOR EXAMPLE:

Why Zynga, NOT Scrabulous, Has a Lucky Facebook Charm and
Scrabulous At Risk? Zynga $10 million VC Game: Facebook Roulette and
2008 Social Media Warning: Beware Google AND Facebook and
YES! Facebook IS Scarier Than Google! and
Facebook is ‘Sorry’? Savvy Users Will Forget, NOT Forgive, Mark Zuckerberg and
Beacon Privacy Solution: STOP USING FACEBOOK! and
Dear Facebook, Beacon Tracking STILL Evil: Will Zuckerberg Partners Repent? and
Facebook STILL a Danger to Children: Zuckerberg, Attorney General Cuomo in PR Push and
Mark Zuckerberg: Use Facebook at Your Own Risk! and
With Facebook Platform as a Developer Friend, Who Needs Enemies? and
Startups: Why Facebook Platform is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing 

PLUS: Craigslist PR: Same OLD Media?

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Contrary to the tagline of the Australian Web 2.0 firm Faraday Media sponsored “Data Portability.org,” online sharing is NOT ALWAYS caring: Just ask the Scobleizer’s 5000 “friends.” What’s more, despite the Riley-Kirkpatrick tag team blogosphere boosting of Faraday Media CEO Chris Saad, the social networking BOMBSHELL that Saad’s “Data Portability Working Group,” is purported to be is but more feel good sound and fury, that could very well signify nothing.

In fact, at the end of the so-called Data Portability day, users may actually be more harmed than helped, (not) thanks to the non-transparent lobbying of interested party Faraday Media in its seemingly benevolent “DataPortability.org,” as I analyze in Data Portability Games: Australian Faraday Media Pushes Web Agenda in U.S.

For a company that positions itself, its products and the industry consortium it seeks to spur, on a vaunted notion of transparency, Faraday Media’s “DataPortability.org” is non-transparent to the users it claims to be helping. Faraday Media is nevertheless crystal clear on its own corporate agenda: To be the definitive “epicenter of the attention ecosystem.” BUT, how does Faraday Media’s creation and evangelizing of the “Data Portability Workgroup,” support its own product roadmap and corporate agenda?

AND, how does a corporate sponsored entity, pooling corporate interests, commercial Web properties and industry consultants, demonstrate that “DataPortability.org” will work in the best interests of users? While the TechCrunch-ReadWrite Web Chris Saad cheerleading team gushes over the “heavy hitters” Faraday Media has managed to snag for its efforts in making sure that it operates as the “epicenter of the Attention Ecosystem,” the confluence of power players may serve to solidify commercial influence over users’ data.

NEWS FLASH: Contrary to conventional blogosphere wisdom, the typical online social networker is NOT clamoring for data portability and many actually fear it, as the Scobleizer-Plaxo stunt reconfirms. SEE: Plaxo, Marc Canter Ignore Rights of Stubborn Social Web Silent Majority and Zuckerberg Message: Facebook Resistance Futile, Billions of Stubborn Email Accounts Targeted and NewsFriends? Facebook Anti Social Utility: Real Friends DON’T Share

ALSO: Does LinkedIn Have a Connections Fraud Problem? and Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn About Face (book) and Deal Maker on LinkedIn: ‘What Do I Do With It?’ and 2008 Social Media Warning: Beware Google AND Facebook and Henry Blodget Braces For ‘Harder Times’: Silicon Alley Insider ‘Screwed’?

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

“Become a knowledge management ninja with Google Reader”? 

If 2007 was the year of Facebook’s “social graph,” Google hopes 2008 will be the year of Google Social. From Open Social, to Google “shared stuff,” to Google Reader “sharing,” Google hopes it can simply “share” its Googley way to Facebook extinction.

I have often underscored, however, that sharing Web 2.0 social media style is NOT really caring.

SEE: NewsFriends? Facebook Anti Social Utility: Real Friends DON’T Share and  YAY? Weblo Cheapens Facebook ‘Friendship,’ Whales Rejoice! and Twitter and Facebook: The BIG Illusions of Friendship and Influence

After all, Old Chinese proverb says: “You can hardly make a friend in a year, but you can easily offend one in an hour,” i.e. Facebook Beacon and Google Reader “sharing.”

Nevertheless, Steve Micro Persuasion Rubel wants more sharing in 2008, especially the Google kind:

Be a ninja in 08. Go forward and good luck.  have been using various RSS readers for nearly five years now - I’ve tried them all. However, none matches the power of Google Reader. I have found that if you tap into all of its features, it’s the Holy Grail of Personal Knowledge Management.

Rubel’s buzzwords dazzle, but where is the real knowledge that he claims to be managing?

I encourage you to throw as many feeds as you can at the Google Reader just so you can capture and mine it. This should include relevant feeds that you never have any intention of reading or even scanning.

Sound familiar? Facebook whales “throw” up to 5000 “friends” around, with never any intention of ever being their friends.

Rubel nevertheless believes his own custom searchable database makes him a knowledge “ninja”:

With the recent addition of search, the Google Reader becomes much more. Like Gmail, Reader should be viewed as a database that you can build from scratch and continually hone.

The end game? Rubel can do his own search for all mentions of employer Edelman’s client Microsoft’s Xbox in Techmeme!

YAY? For Google! Google is the one becoming the knowledge ninja, all knowledgeable of Steve Rubel’s every personal and professional interest and need.

The end of the year privacy brouhahas over Google Reader “sharing” and Facebook Beacon were but charades, feel-good “outrage” with no meaningful privacy effect.

What privacy transgressions were Facebook and Google accused of? The enabling of “sharing” of users’ information with users’ own social graph. The real privacy danger of Google and Facebook continues to be ignored by users, however, as I often underscore here at Insider Chatter.

SEE: Google Reader: Naughty or Nice? Santa Safe! and
YES! Facebook IS Scarier Than Google! and
Facebook is ‘Sorry’? Savvy Users Will Forget, NOT Forgive, Mark Zuckerberg and
Beacon Privacy Solution: STOP USING FACEBOOK! and
Dear Facebook, Beacon Tracking STILL Evil: Will Zuckerberg Partners Repent?

Why have I deemed facebook to be scarier than Google? Each Facebook user knowingly and willingly provides an interested corporation with the intimate details of their daily personal and professional lives to enable persistent data records for the unique data mining profit advantage of the corporation. Because Facebook as “Big Brother” is consensual, there is no redress.

Google has now tied Facebook for scary honors, however, due to how it profits from users’ personal genetic materials obtained by Google under false pretenses via GOOG 411. SEE: Google Warning: How GOOG 411 Tricks Consumers

Bottom 2008 line? Use Google and Facebook accounts at your own risk.

ALSO: Why Google Worship is a BAD Call in 2008 and How Google AdSense FAILS Better Business Bureau

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Poor Santa? Leave it to Slashdot to drag him through the snow in search of a link-worthy headline: “Google Reader shares private data, ruins Christmas.”

REALLY? Felipe Hoffa’s accusation is off the mark, way off.

In the “Sharing With Friends” feature, Google Reader is NOT deviously “sharing” any private data, as Hoffa melodramatically asserts:

As each day Google hoards more of your data there is an implicit deal that makes this possible: You give Google your private data, while they keep it private. That deal would fail miserably is someday Google decided unilaterally to share your data with more people. For example, with all your Gmail contacts. Many people fear that this might happen someday, but they don’t need to wait anymore as it has already happened.

Contrary to Hoffa’s beliefs, there is no privacy “deal” implicit in ANY of Google services which require login. Google’s privacy policies make that abundantly clear: Google is free to do whatever it likes, for as long as it likes, with any user data that is forked over to its servers by anyone. Gmail, for example:

Google maintains and processes your Gmail account and its contents to provide the Gmail service to you… and other purposes relating to offering you Gmail.

The “other purposes” Google disclaimer gives Google the explicit right to do virtually anything it wants with the data of others willingly handed to it for perpetual “hoarding.”

Google Reader’s privacy policy:

We may also use personal information for auditing, research and analysis to operate and improve Google technologies and services.

What does such an open ended Google disclaimer allow Google to do with all user data obtained via Google Reader? Undoubtedly anything it wants to do, as GOOG 411 proves. SEE: Google Warning: How GOOG 411 Tricks Consumers.

Despite that all Google Reader users agree to Google’s Terms Of Service, Hoffa is ”appalled” that Google has not “apologized” for its latest Google Reader sharing “enhancement” and has not offered a “quick fix” to the (not so) legions of Google Reader users that are not quite sure what to make of the new and improved Google Reader.

For Google, the Reader case is nevertheless clear:

The “share” feature was always intended to imply some amount of publicity. That’s why we used the term “share” and had shared items marked as public by default on the Settings > Tags page.

There’s a “clear your shared items” link on the Settings > Friends page if you urgently need to remove the items you’ve shared in the past.

It is still possible (as before) to share specific tags, or your starred items, independently of your shared items feed. This is a good alternative for people who have more specific uses for this feature than the general concept of “sharing.”

Hoffa’s Christmas plea is that Google Reader users are revolting en masse. But, it is a tried and true blog tactic to use Google Group or blog comment thread remarks as a proxy for average user reaction and thereby spin exagerated tales.

Commenters are nevertheless always but a minority of users, regardless of the company involved. What’s more, while many of the Google Reader Group commenters are indeed negative, many are also simply bewildered by the new feature and some are even down right happy with it!

The new Google Reader sharing actually gets a big thumbs up from many Group posters:

very cool, awesome, great idea, thanks Google, I absolutely love you…

WOW! Those Google Reader users certainly are enjoying their Christmas, thanks to Google!

Google Maps users, on the other hand, are NOT faring as well. SEE: Lost On Google Maps! What Merry Christmas?

ALSO: Will Twitter Meet Digg’s Fate? and Browser Flack: Will Google Ever Escape Microsoft Rule? and 2008 Social Media Warning: Beware Google AND Facebook and Why Google Worship is a BAD Call in 2008 and How Google AdSense FAILS Better Business Bureau

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN