Today’s social networking environment is interesting from a variety of perspectives.

There’s the security aspect, of course.  Folks have to be careful not to divulge too much information, such as: 

“Hey!  We’re on vacation in beautiful [insert location here]!” 

This is the equivalent of a news bulletin to every nearby thief: 

“Hi.  We’re not in our home at the moment, and won’t be for the next couple weeks.  Come on by, break in, and peruse our stuff – take what you like…”

In fact, it is often auto-responders that let criminals know that people are on vacation – and these can be very dangerous.  Criminals survey the ‘net to find out which houses are empty, and auto-responders make for very efficient pairing of house-to-criminal.  Think.

I remember the good old days when, as IT Director and later CIO, I’d walk out the door one afternoon and not touch a computer or send a message for two whole weeks.  I might write a regular paper letter or two and post it while on vacation, but that was it.  Today’s eCulture really has people tethered to their accounts and devices: 

According to TechCrunch:

-          50% of all Americans are on Facebook – but only 37% have a passport.

-          There are 750 million active users worldwide.

-          There are 700 billion minutes per month spent.

-          58% of people are online while on vacation. 

People feel pressure to stay “plugged in.”  There’s pressure to e-mail, tweet, IM, update websites with vacation photos and blurbs… 

This is a lot of people, and a lot of time spent.  I would urge all users, family members, children, professional associates – all interconnected and linked people – to be very circumspect about what information you make public. 

Also:  Be very wary of what kinds of information new “friends” solicit.  If you know someone exclusively through the domain of online social networking, e-mail, etc., be quite careful.  Not to encourage spying, but take note of what children are doing too.

Also, consider private moments “breachable” – anything can happen, and it’s important to view every activity through a security prism.  I counsel everyone with whom I work and deal:  View all activity through security’s prism.  Yes, that bears repeating – and often.

Rather than a burden, it becomes second nature – like fastening a seat belt or locking your door when exiting the house.

To “business” I say:  Take stock of what you’re doing, saying, and exposing on social networking sites.  Many businesses have official social networking sites and more are jumping in all the time.  Employees often exit the “party” of their personal account, and bring the wrong voice to the work account.  Know what employees are saying there; how they’re interacting with customers/clients and potential ones.  Guard against mixing “friending” with “businessing” – have a social networking policy that comports with, and augments, the organization’s Communications Policy, Acceptable Use Policy, Security Policy, Content Management Policy, and any others.

If don’t have each of those, or if you’re a small org, that’s ok – just be certain to cover the bases in whatever general policies you have concerning employee activity and behavior.  If you’re not sure what you have or need, find someone to help you and get liabilities and protections documented and dispersed throughout staff – via communication, training, and hopefully both.

For private individuals, for organizations, now is the time for these reviews, actions, and behaviors.

NP:  John Coltrane, Live at the Village Vanguard, original Impulse! 33rpm LP.

Today’s article follows on to yesterday’s Part I, where we discussed a relatively new company, Social Intelligence Corporation (SIC), and it’s offering of services to employers.  Please see that if you haven’t already.

Someone made a great point (credit Steve Doocy of Fox News):  What if you take a picture today of you hanging out with a friend, post it to a social networking account – and that friend becomes a felon in the future?  Is SIC going to deliver a future report to a prospective employer, stating that you associate with known felons?

Max Drucker, CEO of SIC, answered the question as a definite:  “Probably not.”  That’s hardly reassuring, although he does say that employers are primarily interested in the following categories for screening applicants:

-          Racist remarks

-          Clearly illegal activity such as drug use

-          Sexually explicit photos and videos

-          Flagrant displays of weapons or bombs

“Those are the things we look for, we don’t look for associations.”  But what will Mr. Drucker and SIC deliver in the event employers DO ask for associations?  I can’t say with certainty, but I know this:  SIC is in business to deliver a service.  That service is, essentially, a background check on potential employees.  SIC, and any service company, stays in business by filling the service expectations of clients – here, employers.  When employers start asking for “known associations,” companies like SIC are likely to deliver.

Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation.com, makes several interesting points.  He notes that, at present, human beings at SIC are making nuanced, human, judgments about content and those people who generate it – people, in this context, who are prospective employees.  However, it won’t be long before competitor companies seek to deliver this service to employers faster, better (in competitors’ minds), and cheaper – and this will involve… automation.  Mr. Fertik’s points are well taken.

Here’s my take:  Automation frequently delivers a “dumb” report regarding content.  That is, there is no nuance, no judgment; there is lack of balance, and frequently a view to content that is a 180 degree diametric opposite of what that content might truly represent in its full context, outside the constricting view of a static report.

I made the point yesterday, in Part I, that someone might join an online group for purpose of monitoring; for example, a student might even join a hate site for purpose of a school report on such activities. 

Consider what SIC would make of that…

NP:  Two Degrees East, Three Degrees West – John Lewis/Jim Hall – Jazz24.org

We’ve discussed online social networking peril here at length, but there is now a new wrinkle.

In addition to keeping work accounts and personal accounts straight, and taking great care not to mix “friending” with “businessing,” employees now must contend with the Social Intelligence Corporation.

What is the Social Intelligence Corporation (SIC) and its allied mission?  Nothing short of supplying potential employers with a comprehensive report of what you’ve been doing through social networking (and anything else online):  The good, the bad, and that which will get you screened from any hope of working for whatever company to which you’re applying.

As a year-old startup, SIC rakes social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, et al, even blogs, and presents anything suspect to the employing agent:  Again, perhaps a company that is considering you for employment.  You mail a resume, you get a call, you interview – and at some point in the process – perhaps even upon receipt of the resume – the company engages SIC and requests your online history.

It’s hard to know if SIC is sick, or just the next step in employers’ due diligence and arsenal of tools in arriving at best employees and staffs.  It does seem a little sinister that employers, and SIC, are raking the relative party of social networking in assessing candidates.  I mean, I wouldn’t have wanted potential employers at some of my house parties back in the day – ya know what I mean?  We’ve already noted that employers have been using Google to look up names and online presence of potential employees.  This takes it to a whole ‘nother level.

Consider the case of one person:  They merely joined a Facebook group called “I shouldn’t have to press ‘1’ for English.  We’re in the United States.  Learn the language.”  Apparently, the SIC’s software identified the individual as having “…other obvious racist leaning or proclivities” merely through association.  Seems a bit heavy.  And what of someone’s membership whereby they’re merely monitoring such a group?

Just recently, the Federal Trade Commission suspended an investigation of SIC, by virtue of the fact that it appears to comply, for now, with the Fair Credit Reporting Act:  In this case, SIC must be certain that clients (companies, organizations) advise applicants when something deleterious turns up on a report, with subsequent negative impact to potential employment with that employer.

So… beware.  We’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  Stay safe out there.

NP:  Hungaria, Bireli Lagrene

By now, many if not most people have heard about Facebook’s so-called “secret” hire of an outside public relations firm to plant less-than-flattering stories about Google as regards security.  That public relations firm, it is now known, is Burson-Marsteller – one of the biggest, and… er… one of the best (?).

In the interest of full disclosure, your humble correspondent was Information Technology Director at one of Burson-Marsteller’s (B-M) largest regional offices:  Washington, DC.  In fact, I was actually a Young & Rubicam employee, positioned at the DC office of B-M:  Young & Rubicam owns Burson-Marsteller.

That said, it’s a rather interesting story about a lack of judgment, and a rather unsound understanding of The Business-Technology Weave that we all inhabit.  The Daily Beast has reported that Facebook’s initiative to put Google in a bad light backfired when Burson-Marsteller tried to enlist a blogger in furthering negative privacy implications surrounding Google’s Social Circle social networking service.

That blogger, Chris Soghoian, a former Federal Trade Commission researcher, published his e-mails with B-M, and this exposure was ultimately reported by USA Today.  The flavor of events became such that it is now clear that Facebook was engaging in an anti-Google campaign. 

Here’s the kernel of what has Facebook, and perhaps Google, in a bit of hot water:  Google’s Social Circle service is intended to help Gmail users maintain connection with people they chat with or e-mail – “direct connections.”  But beyond, this service sends Gmail users the names of what they call secondary connections; these are any people that the direct connections follow publicly through the internet.  Thus, there’s an uncomfortable mixing of private and public connections…  further, Google is constantly refining the “Google experience” – mixing all manner of people, associated information, and online activity into an ongoing evolution of the web experience.  It usually happens seamlessly, and many people may not be aware of what their presence within Google’s circle actually represents.

Google also prompts Gmail users to connect other outside accounts to the Social Circle:  Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Flickr, as well as others.  More uncomfortable mixing, at least according to my taste.  The stew can have too many ingredients; there’s always a point of diminishing return…

I like managing things very tightly, and I communicate in different styles according to different individuals and audiences – I’m sure most readers here do too.  That’s the crux of the matter – what is it that you’re doing, and to whom might it inadvertently be exposed?  Are you completely knowledgeable about access to your vital information – content – and do you harbor a similar knowledge as to where any of your “sends” go?  (Whether e-mail, Twitter, post, etc.).

I’ve often asked of Business:  What is being done in the name of your domain?  But now I say to the individual social networking user:  What are YOU doing in the name of your domain?  That is, under the umbrella of your own personal good name? 

For example, I know that when I publish in the domain of David Scott, my content is appropriate, and goes to appropriate entities and eyes.

Do you know that in your own regards?

NP:  Light-Foot, Lou Donaldson, www.Jazz24.org.

We’ve spoken of social media perils in the past.  For companies, there is liability in “friending” (on work time) one moment, then bringing an undue voice and sensibility to “businessing” the next, having just exited the party of social networking on social media such as Facebook and MySpace.

Let’s look at the personal for a moment, and related peril:  Social media is now being used in 90% of a Florida attorney’s divorce cases. 

Carin Constantine says, “You get a little bit of everything, that happens on Facebook.  Everything from clients coming in with pictures of the opposing party doing a keg stand with high schoolers… to teenagers drinking alcohol served by a parent… to a picture of a husband at a nightclub dancing with a babysitter.”  (Source:  10News, St. Petersburg, FL)

At present, Facebook is cited in a fifth of divorce cases in the U.S., according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

This ubiquitous use of social media exists in the workplace, too.  Increasingly, employees are wasting work time on social media, holding business work at bay.  It’s ok to utilize social media for marketing, business contacting, business communications, and other sanctioned business use.  However, employees are frequently frittering away precious business time, during the business day, updating friends and acquaintances on purely personal matters – and other things.

Those “other things” frequently regard ruminations on the boss, co-workers, or some measure of business that is characterized in a less than flattering way. 

Take heed:  An increasing number of employers are monitoring employees through social media – both in terms of personal behavior, in adjudging suitability for promotion or even continued occupancy in the organization – as well as for the aforementioned lack of judgment in discussing business matters, and for simple waste of business time.  Your boss may be making regular checks – how will you know? – and increasingly, Human Resources departments are assembling documentation in backing up personnel actions involving discipline and dismissals.

If you are the boss – any measure of management with any measure of people reporting to you – apprise those people of the proper sanctions and expectations.  Provide orientations and warnings regarding social media:  Its use (if any), the limitations, and the perils to avoid.

In all regards, personal and business, be circumspect in your use of social media and networking. 

Remember:  People judge you by the company you keep, and for the things you say and do.   That holds true for the online world too, in this still relatively new world of social media. 

Yesterday:  Congratulations to Navy SEAL Team 6.

Back in the days of my misspent youth, as CIO in a Fortune100 environment, one of my more favored positions was leading IT for a “perception management” company.

Perception Management was this firm’s rebranding and widening of the established Public Relations schema.  I rather enjoyed it and found it quite interesting.

Perception Management is extraordinarily important in this age of social networking:  Both in terms of personal SN and business:  Many businesses, particularly small and medium business (SMB) are utilizing SN because it is efficient, inexpensive, and readily available – easy access; easy setup.

We discussed a particular case of personal peril a couple posts ago, and – if you scroll through the history of this blog – a fair number of other SN perils and outcomes… essentially involving people saying embarrassing things about themselves or others, and being outed for it.

But now there are perils involving livelihoods and professional standing.                         

Courts personnel, lawyers, and other associates are now perusing jury pools’ members for biases or relationships that may taint and jeopardize the outcome of trials.  In some cases, attorneys have found actual relationships between seated jurors and defendants on trial!  This is solid grounds for dismissal and retrial – and that has happened.

Further, reviews of SN pages by folks with legal standing have uncovered information about illegal activities – sometimes resulting in arrest and prison. 

But of perhaps a more mundane concern to the professional readership here:  Hiring authorities are now perusing SN sites, simply taking names from resumes and Googling, Facebooking, and YouTubing around, and seeing what comes up.  And often, what comes up is… well, interesting.

You can certainly glean an assessment for someone’s maturity, their gravitas, and likely their overall suitability for any specific job from their SN postings, their friendships, their hobbies, and whatever else occupies their time and fancy.  And do you know what?  There ain’t a thing you can do about it.  Should you be screened from a job for something a potential employer saw online – you’d never know.

You could even be competing for a promotion at a present place of employment; it will become increasingly likely that HR and the manager up the line will review your online standing and presence along with internal performance reviews and documentation.

For the aforementioned SMB:  If you are using the ready-network of SN – with its undeniable enablement of business – ensure your folks are not blending “friending” with “businessing.”   That is, bleeding the jocularity and questionable taste of interactions between friends, and bringing that informality to the realm of business.  It’s easy enough to do when switching back and forth.

Perception Management:  Manage how you want to be perceived.  More importantly, be the person you want to be understood as being. 

Make certain your business adheres to proper protocols and styles of communication too.  Survey what is being done in the name of your domain.

Have that accurately reflected in all that you do online – in controlling perceptions.

March 31^st:  On this day in 1963, Los Angeles ended streetcar service after 90 years.

Security involves so much more than physical protection and means of recovery for data; or content.

It also comprises educated use of data.  Best use of data.  Appropriate use of data – as well as prudent dissemination.  Be very wary of that which you consider propagating:  Some actions are irreversible.

Consider the case of UCLA student Alexandra Wallace.  She made what she considered a funny video regarding Asian students and, again in her mind, their rudeness in talking on mobile phones in the school library.  In the video, she spoke into a phone with what appears to be her assessment of how many Asians sound, using a sort of Asian-mimicking dialect – if I may.  An exaggerated imitation.  Yikes! – even I have to be careful here, lest I say something that can be taken the wrong way.

Alexandra’s video went viral, of course, resulting in what she says is harassment to her family, death threats, and “publishing of my personal information” – whatever that may be.  For these reasons, she has chosen to withdraw from UCLA.

She withdrew the video from YouTube two days after it was posted; of course it was too late.  It was all over the web by then.

It’s important to note, and we’ve spoken of this before, that our lives are now “Personal-Technology Weaves” – it’s sad to note that in 2011, even young people have not been apprised of the great risk (in addition to the great benefits) to be had on the ‘net. 

Any tool, any enablement, any means or mechanism for the blast of information, must come with an accompanying set of warnings and instructions for best use.  Educators, starting in 1^st grade in my mind, should be making exposure of perils, as delivered through the enormous leverage content has and its efficient propagation.

Make sure you, and those around you, understand the risks as well as the benefits.  Make sure  your staffs at work understand.  Your kids.  Your co-workers:  Consider; someone may well blast something of yours to the wrong place.  It may be legitimate work-content, but if they violate an Obligation of Confidentiality, for example, or just disseminate the wrong interpretation of content, to clients, for example… everyone’s in trouble.

Be careful out there.

NP:  Jesse Colin Young, Songbird, on LP.

I’m not sure there are words to adequately express the true problem that this article illuminates:  Douglas County Students Disciplined Over Facebook Post. 

It is naturally disturbing that these students, in 2011, are not aware of social networking perils, the global wallop of the internet’s speed and comprehensibility, as well as aspects of damage to reputations.  That, plus legal liabilities involving defamation. 

But in a more basic and general sense – what of simple honesty, decency, and good character – how do 12-year-olds today think it is ok to label a teacher a pedophile; a rapist; as bipolar? 

Or perhaps a better question is:  What allows them to unthinkingly do this?  Answer:  The “realm of risk” allows them this latitude.  In the realm of risk, unmanaged possibilities become probabilities.  We can see how universal this important BTW warning is  - and how wide its applicability:  No one set proper expectations and limits on these kids’ online posts.

Kids say mean things; cruel things; stupid things.  I did when I was young, and likely you did too.  Today’s kids will do those things in the internet age’s equivalent of our neon lights – unless someone tells them not to, and spells out the consequences.

What of school policy?  The modern requirements for school policy mandate a section concerning defamation of teachers, administrators, etc., regardless of forum; whether occurring on school grounds with school resources, or elsewhere.  Today’s electronic enablements make this a no-brainer.

What of elementary education?  It has to include coverage of internet communications and general use.  If schools are in the business of teaching children the difference between “bad touches” and “good touches,” there sure is an appropriate need to be filled regarding electronic communication in 2011 – particularly given the parents’ reactions in the included article.

That is the most dismaying thing.  Kids do not possess wisdom and experience – caring parents and educators help that along.  But in this case, the parents are devoid of wisdom and experience – actually defending their kids within the most egregious defamations possible.

Indeed.

Go check your kids.  They’re kids.

On this day:  In 1959, Groucho, Chico and Harpo Marx make their final TV appearance together.

Don’t Miss the Obvious:  Reason for care, training and awareness

According to Pingdom, internet users sent around 107 trillion e-mails last year.  I dunno about you, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot to me unless I can see some sort of visual representation of that…

For a handy example for what a trillion+ e-mails might represent, check this site:  PageTutor.com.  Here, they’re explaining what one trillion dollars in $100 bills would look like.  Simply substitute 100 e-mails for the $100 dollar bill in the example (while realizing that many e-mails are multiple pages, and frequently contain attachments, to boot!).  The volume is staggering.

Unsurprisingly, Pingdom reports that most of the e-mails were spam!  I think my Inbox/Junk Folder accounts for about 1.5 million of last year’s total. 

However, I do have to troll for timely subjects for the blog, and in the course of casting far and wide, I do tend to accrue a few things I don’t need to receive.

That said, check out these stats (Source for all stats:  Pingdom):

-        As of June, 2010, there were 1.97 billion internet users

o   825.1 million in Asia

o   475.1 million in Europe

o   266.2 million in North America

o   204.7 million in Latin America/Caribbean

o   110.9 million in Africa

o   63.2 million in the Middle East

o   21.3 million in Oceana and Australia

Given that there are about 2.9 billion e-mail accounts around the world, it’s not too surprising that out of 294 billion messages a day, roughly 89 % were spam.

Some other interesting facts:

-        About 152 million blogs worldwide

-        Total websites:  255 million – 21.4 million more than the previous year

-        Domain names?  Comprised of:

o   88.8 million .com

o   13.2 million .net

o   8.6 million .org

o   79.2 million “country code” names, such as .uk, .cn, .au, etc.

Twitter and Facebook:

-        Twitter:

o   100 million new accounts added by Twitter last year.

o   175 million accounts as of September

o   25 billion Tweets sent in 2010

-        Facebook:

o   250 million accounts added in 2010

o   600 million accounts at the end of the year

With all of this activity, quite naturally, organizations and employees must be very careful – particularly when conducting business via these means – to be mindful of security, best business practices, and appropriate styles for communication and tone.

For “business” – a simple reminder from the BTW:  Monitor what is being done in the name of your domain.  The simplest example:  Be certain that JohnQSmith@yourdomain.org is not sending mail or posting to blogs or articles anything that reflects poorly on business, clients, co-workers, supervision, etc.

Ensure employees are trained and refreshed about the perils for blending social networking and business.  Some small and medium businesses utilize social networking for advertising, networking, and communicating – and do it very effectively.  However, it is in these circumstances there is peril for a natural tendency to mix “friending” and “businessing.”  Be careful.

Larger enterprises flat-out ban the use of social networks at work, and thus for any business being conducted through them.  Be certain to know your organization’s Acceptable Use, Content Management and Security policies through and through.  If you are the driving authority for these policies, make certain they are spec’d for 2011 and beyond…

For Business:  Remember that any organization owns not only its technical enablements, such as the e-mail system and all supporting systems, but all content within those.  It is your content to monitor; prudent business does not need to read each and every e-mail (impossible), nor does it need to spot check mail (excepting of course when HR and allied business supervision suspects employee malfeasance).  Rather, your system should have alerts based upon words and phrases that can flag the appropriate organizational authorities so as to instigate  investigation when necessary.

Of course, any measure of manual oversight and spot-checking is fine.  That is up to each individual organization; based on need, size, volume of traffic, policing practices, and so on. 

But above all, be efficient:  Get some flags set, and train personnel and dispense policy – have each employee sign appropriate policies as having been read and understood and file them in their personnel folders.

NP:  Sarah Vaughan –  Sassy Swings the Tivoli.  Original 1963 LP (Live at the Tivoli in Copenhagen – Sarah; Kirk Stuart,piano; Charles Williams, double bass; George Hughes, drums).    Original Mercury LP.  Class – and world-class. 

This is a sea-change from a few years ago, when organization’s had sort of a Wild West situation going on.  The “Business” half of the organization was mired in business – the doing of doing what ya do – and “IT” was lagging a bit:  particularly in small and medium business environments. 

Acceptable Use policies made little if any mention of social networking.  Many policies were even thin on e-mail etiquette.  Remember “netiquette?”  How quaint that seems.

Even today, as I review policies, many are remiss in their treatment of social networking.  As I remarked in an earlier article, I think a Permitted Use section of an AU policy is a good thing, spelling out the when of what you can do on social networking.  It’s a blended environment, and people are going to use company assets such as e-mail, to apprise spouses and other significant others of their schedule:  My arrival time home, who’s picking up the kids, etc.  To say nothing of “Friending”…

Now consider that Facebook is adding e-mail to its services:  Employees have another tempting avenue of communication via work-related assets for purpose of handling personal affairs.

Some companies allow social networking on lunches and breaks.  Some ban it altogether.  However, what is important is that you size the employee expectations and associated use- and establish protections for your organization.  The general caveats that have stood in time apply:  No bad-mouthing the company, its personnel, its practices… Do not divulge corporate secrets… most of it dumps straight out of HR, and gets quickly tuned and rewritten as IT policy, and as a section of IT orientation for each new hire.  Be sure that employees aren’t conducting official business through social networking, as that doesn’t come under the umbrella of your content management policies, your backups, your oversight.

Periodic refreshers for appropriate use of social  networking, or no use at all, for all staff are in order, too. 

Nov. 17^th:  On this day in 1853, street signs are authorized at San Francisco intersections.