HOW NOT TO GET HACKED ON FACEBOOK
from the article 'Facebook Users: How Not to Get Hacked'
By Kimberly Weisul | May 10, 2011
There are plenty of things Facebook users, and others, can do to protect their personal information online. Consumer Reports recommends:
Keep tabs on your kids’ accounts. Some kids won’t ‘friend’ their parents, of course, but they just might fork over their user name and password. Other parents can keep up on their children’s online activities via siblings or other friends.
Use privacy controls. Consumer Reports found that one in five adult Facebook users don’t use privacy controls. Whenever Facebook gives you a choice, set the information to be visible only to your friends. Otherwise your profile picture, friends list, activities, and other info can be seen by anyone who does a public search on your name.
Turn off Instant Personalization. Instant personalization shares your location information with sites such as Yelp and TripAdvisor (and the list is growing). The default setting for “instant personalization” is “on,” but you can turn it off.
Be careful with apps. In most cases, you can decide which information an app can see. Facebook says it doesn’t share identifiable information with advertisers, but using an app does make general information available.
Set a PIN number for your phone. Most smartphones allow you to set a four-digit PIN for your phone, but only about 20 percent of people-even those who store sensitive information on their phones-actually do this.
Protect your phone. The PIN is just the start. Many manufacturers offer over-the-air backup, remote phone locating, remote phone locking, and erasing of data and account info. You can also get software to lock your phone or erase data remotely. Turn off the phone’s GPS feature if you don’t need it.
MY THOUGHTS
I never liked the apps.
Showing posts with label internet privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet privacy. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
HOW SECURED IS FACEBOOK
Facebook defends security strategy
Shy social network responds to criticism
By John Leyden • Get more from this author
Posted in Malware, 21st January 2011 16:01 GMT
Analysis Facebook has defended its record in thwarting rogue applications and other security in the face of criticism from security firms that it ought to adopt tighter application controls.
The dominant social network disputes findings from a threat report by UK-based net security firm Sophos, released earlier this week, that spam, malware and other attacks have become more effective against Facebook users over the last year.
Facebook reckons the opposite is true while disputing the methodology adopted by Sophos which it said looked, for example, at the volume of spam sent to Facebook users instead of the volume that reached their in-boxes.
Facebook said: "If your spam filter catches all the spam, does it matter that your filter caught 10 per cent more?"
The social networking site reckons less than three per cent of communications on Facebook are spam, compared to industry estimates that email spam makes up 90 per cent of all electronic messages. The implication is that Sophos is focusing on the wrong problem.
Unfriending rogues
Survey scams have become an almost daily occurrence on Facebook over recent months. Typically they use the lure of an application that a potential victim's friend has been tricked into installing, such as a 'Dislike' button or a link to shocking (invariably bogus) news about a celebrity.
Instead of getting the promised content, victims are invited to navigate their way through a thicket of time-wasting surveys. Scammers earn a kick-back for each victim as affiliates of unethical marketing firms.
More ambitious (and lucrative) scams attempt to trick victims into supplying their mobile number, before signing up to a premium rate text messaging service of questionable utility.
The scams take advantage of human stupidity rather than web security vulnerabilities. Both Sophos and Facebook agree that user education is part of the solution, but the two are split on whether Facebook itself could do more to tighten up its controls on how applications are released onto its platform.
In a statement responding to Sophos' report, Facebook said it has plenty of controls already that limit access to information.
We have built extensive controls into the product, so that now when you add an application it only gets access to very limited data and the user must approve each additional type of data (so we do more than anyone else to educate users about passage of data, and force disclosure and user consent for each category beyond the basics).
We have a dedicated team that does robust review of all third party applications, using a risk based approach. So, that means that we first look at velocity/number of users/types of data shared, and prioritise. This ensures that the team is focused on addressing the biggest risks, rather than just doing a cursory review at the time that an app is first launched.
We make sure that we act swiftly to remove/sanction potentially bad applications before they gain access to data, and involve law enforcement and file civil actions if there is a problem.
Down with this sort of thing
Facebook said it is constantly improving the level of account protection offered to users, citing its introduction of one-time passwords back in October 2010, a development designed to make it safer for users to use public computers to access the service.
The social network goes on to list its user education programmes, which are geared to improving the security awareness levels of users.
These initiatives include updating the 3.6 million people who have liked the Facebook Security Page, hundreds of thousands of which have taken our "Stop. Think. Connect." quiz on the Page, which we developed with National Cyber Security Alliance and the Anti-Phishing Working Group; as well as the education we do through the product, for example, when we detect that an account is compromised by phishing or malware, we put the owner through a remediation/education process that includes a free McAfee virus scan.
When a person clicks on a link that we can't verify, or that we think might be suspicious, we pop an interstitial warning.
We put these points to Sophos, which said it stood by the main findings of its original report, and argued that the social network could and should do more to improve the security of its users.
"I definitely feel that Facebook could be doing more to both better secure their users, and to ensure that privacy is treated as a higher priority," Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, told El Reg.
Facebook may talk a good game but a quick search (viewable only if logged into Facebook and safe providing you don't click on the links) shows hundreds of victims have installed a rogue app that falsely promises the ability to "see who has viewed your profile".
Facebook ought to have someone searching for such scams and stamping them out, something that isn't happening as yet. "Often I see these scams spreading for days on end, with no obvious action taken by Facebook," Cluley said.
Careful now
According to Sophos, the social network could employ a round-the-clock security response team. Some have suggested Apple-style pre-approval of apps would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the volume of crud circulating on Facebook. However, Cluley said such an approach was hard to apply to Facebook's platform.
"Pre-approval of apps is tricky, because they are web-based and contain content that is not hosted on Facebook's own servers," Cluley explained. "In other words, the bad guys could change it any time - turning a good app into a rogue one."
What might work better is some form of white-listing or restricting the ability to access sensitive data to already trusted developers, Cluley explained.
"Each app could be submitted for profiling to Facebook, who would create a matrix of what data it requested to access from the user, and which webpages it uses content from. If these changed at any point then the app would no longer be approved, and be sent back to Facebook's sinbin team for checking.
"Better than that would be for Facebook to only allow apps that came from approved developers to access sensitive information or post to users' walls."
Cluley said Facebook introduced an optional app verification program in November 2008, only to quietly kill it off a year later.
Facebook ought to consider reviving the program, said Cluley. "If developers had to pay to become official developers for the Facebook platform, and if not being an official developer meant you weren't able to hit Facebook users, then we'd see an instant dramatic drop in the attacks."
Sophos suggested that Facebook ought to be more proactive in using its security page as an early warning system on scams, as part of a broader program targeted at curtailing rogue apps and other security threats.
"There's a sliding scale of things that Facebook could do to counter the problem of rogue apps - ranging from faster response to stricter conditions about who and who can't write Facebook applications," Cluley concluded. "What's clear is that their current approach isn't working." ®
MY THOUGHTS
we have a choice, as always. if we're so heated up about our security and privacy there are, at least, 2 things we can do. one is to stop using facebook altogether.or be a responsible user.
Shy social network responds to criticism
By John Leyden • Get more from this author
Posted in Malware, 21st January 2011 16:01 GMT
Analysis Facebook has defended its record in thwarting rogue applications and other security in the face of criticism from security firms that it ought to adopt tighter application controls.
The dominant social network disputes findings from a threat report by UK-based net security firm Sophos, released earlier this week, that spam, malware and other attacks have become more effective against Facebook users over the last year.
Facebook reckons the opposite is true while disputing the methodology adopted by Sophos which it said looked, for example, at the volume of spam sent to Facebook users instead of the volume that reached their in-boxes.
Facebook said: "If your spam filter catches all the spam, does it matter that your filter caught 10 per cent more?"
The social networking site reckons less than three per cent of communications on Facebook are spam, compared to industry estimates that email spam makes up 90 per cent of all electronic messages. The implication is that Sophos is focusing on the wrong problem.
Unfriending rogues
Survey scams have become an almost daily occurrence on Facebook over recent months. Typically they use the lure of an application that a potential victim's friend has been tricked into installing, such as a 'Dislike' button or a link to shocking (invariably bogus) news about a celebrity.
Instead of getting the promised content, victims are invited to navigate their way through a thicket of time-wasting surveys. Scammers earn a kick-back for each victim as affiliates of unethical marketing firms.
More ambitious (and lucrative) scams attempt to trick victims into supplying their mobile number, before signing up to a premium rate text messaging service of questionable utility.
The scams take advantage of human stupidity rather than web security vulnerabilities. Both Sophos and Facebook agree that user education is part of the solution, but the two are split on whether Facebook itself could do more to tighten up its controls on how applications are released onto its platform.
In a statement responding to Sophos' report, Facebook said it has plenty of controls already that limit access to information.
We have built extensive controls into the product, so that now when you add an application it only gets access to very limited data and the user must approve each additional type of data (so we do more than anyone else to educate users about passage of data, and force disclosure and user consent for each category beyond the basics).
We have a dedicated team that does robust review of all third party applications, using a risk based approach. So, that means that we first look at velocity/number of users/types of data shared, and prioritise. This ensures that the team is focused on addressing the biggest risks, rather than just doing a cursory review at the time that an app is first launched.
We make sure that we act swiftly to remove/sanction potentially bad applications before they gain access to data, and involve law enforcement and file civil actions if there is a problem.
Down with this sort of thing
Facebook said it is constantly improving the level of account protection offered to users, citing its introduction of one-time passwords back in October 2010, a development designed to make it safer for users to use public computers to access the service.
The social network goes on to list its user education programmes, which are geared to improving the security awareness levels of users.
These initiatives include updating the 3.6 million people who have liked the Facebook Security Page, hundreds of thousands of which have taken our "Stop. Think. Connect." quiz on the Page, which we developed with National Cyber Security Alliance and the Anti-Phishing Working Group; as well as the education we do through the product, for example, when we detect that an account is compromised by phishing or malware, we put the owner through a remediation/education process that includes a free McAfee virus scan.
When a person clicks on a link that we can't verify, or that we think might be suspicious, we pop an interstitial warning.
We put these points to Sophos, which said it stood by the main findings of its original report, and argued that the social network could and should do more to improve the security of its users.
"I definitely feel that Facebook could be doing more to both better secure their users, and to ensure that privacy is treated as a higher priority," Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, told El Reg.
Facebook may talk a good game but a quick search (viewable only if logged into Facebook and safe providing you don't click on the links) shows hundreds of victims have installed a rogue app that falsely promises the ability to "see who has viewed your profile".
Facebook ought to have someone searching for such scams and stamping them out, something that isn't happening as yet. "Often I see these scams spreading for days on end, with no obvious action taken by Facebook," Cluley said.
Careful now
According to Sophos, the social network could employ a round-the-clock security response team. Some have suggested Apple-style pre-approval of apps would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the volume of crud circulating on Facebook. However, Cluley said such an approach was hard to apply to Facebook's platform.
"Pre-approval of apps is tricky, because they are web-based and contain content that is not hosted on Facebook's own servers," Cluley explained. "In other words, the bad guys could change it any time - turning a good app into a rogue one."
What might work better is some form of white-listing or restricting the ability to access sensitive data to already trusted developers, Cluley explained.
"Each app could be submitted for profiling to Facebook, who would create a matrix of what data it requested to access from the user, and which webpages it uses content from. If these changed at any point then the app would no longer be approved, and be sent back to Facebook's sinbin team for checking.
"Better than that would be for Facebook to only allow apps that came from approved developers to access sensitive information or post to users' walls."
Cluley said Facebook introduced an optional app verification program in November 2008, only to quietly kill it off a year later.
Facebook ought to consider reviving the program, said Cluley. "If developers had to pay to become official developers for the Facebook platform, and if not being an official developer meant you weren't able to hit Facebook users, then we'd see an instant dramatic drop in the attacks."
Sophos suggested that Facebook ought to be more proactive in using its security page as an early warning system on scams, as part of a broader program targeted at curtailing rogue apps and other security threats.
"There's a sliding scale of things that Facebook could do to counter the problem of rogue apps - ranging from faster response to stricter conditions about who and who can't write Facebook applications," Cluley concluded. "What's clear is that their current approach isn't working." ®
MY THOUGHTS
we have a choice, as always. if we're so heated up about our security and privacy there are, at least, 2 things we can do. one is to stop using facebook altogether.or be a responsible user.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
DON'T GET FIRED BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK
Yes, You Should Be Fired For That Facebook Post. (No Matter What the Feds Say Next Week)
By Suzanne Lucas | January 21, 2011
Facebook is a tool used by teenagers to torment each other and for adults to complain about their bosses, right? Except that your rude commment about your boss or your coworker, or your inapproriate comments about stupid stuff you did could land you on the curb.
Right now the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is preparing to hear a case where an employee was fired after criticizing her boss on Facebook. (Jon Hyman has a round up of information on this union firing.) But, the NLRB deals largely (although not exclusively) with union employees, who are definitely not “at will” employees, but are under contract.
I still think you should be careful.
I hear the screeching about free speech right now. Well, yes, you have the right to free speech, but I also believe that companies should have the right to terminate people who use that speech to denigrate the company. Free speech, not free from consequences speech. (And remember, it’s only government suppression of speech that is illegal.) Most employees in the United States are at will employees, which means that there is no contract of employment and either party can end it for any or no reason, as long as the reason isn’t an illegal one. For instance, you can’t fire an employee because she’s pregnant, but you can fire a pregnant employee, as long as the pregnancy isn’t the reason.
So, why am I in favor of companies being able to terminate an employee for online behavior? (These things, of course, aren’t limited to Facebook. Myspace, Twitter, and blogs are all good candidates for firing). Here are 3 Reasons.
1. Easy firing=easy hiring. I want companies to hire people. In fact, my fondest wish is that all my readers who are searching for jobs find one this year. The more restrictions government places on terminating employees, the more hesitant companies are to hire new people.
2. Bad judgment isn’t limited to online behavior. Companies need employees they can trust to make good decisions. If you lack the critical thinking skills to say, “Hmmm, if I post that my boss is a jerk, my boss just might find out about it,” then you probably lack the critical thinking skills to do your job. Yes, people vent. But the internet is not private. And anyone who thinks they can trust all their 476 friends to keep something quiet isn’t someone I want on my staff.
3. Companies should be able to presume loyalty. I know, I know, your company doesn’t care much about your career and they have no problem firing you, so why should you care about them? Because they pay you to care about them. In a pre-internet case where Delta airline employee was fired over a letter to the editor, “[t]he court in that case held that there ‘”is an implied duty of loyalty, with regard to public communications, that employees owe to their employers.’ Stating that Mr. Marsh violated this implied duty of loyalty by publicly disparaging Delta, the court found that his termination was just.” We forbid employees from giving information to the competitor, which would damage the company, so why not forbid employees from posting information that would hurt the company? The exception to this is when the company is engaging in illegal activity. Then employees should speak out and should be afforded whistleblower protection.
However, I also think that bosses should stay off their employees’ and candidates’ Facebook pages. Why? Because it opens up whole cans of fire-breathing worms. And, once those cans are open, the worms have no interest in going back in. Here’s why:
1. There are things you don’t want to know. Honestly and truly, there are things out there about your employees that you don’t want to know. Even though you can legally fire people easily, few companies allow you to actually do that. And there are lots of unemployed lawyers who would be happy to take your employee’s case.
2. Some information cannot be considered. Yes, you know the gender, age, race, national origin and, frequently, religion and sexual orientation of your employees. But, you can’t make decisions based on this information, so don’t browse Facebook looking for it. Wonder if Jim is gay? What about that candidate? She looked Jewish. Hmmmm. Seriously, even though you wouldn’t make a decision based on protected class information, doesn’t mean you won’t have to defend against it. If you don’t know, your defense is much easier.
3. Your employees are not your friends. I know, you’re a great boss and everyone loves you, but remember they love you because you are paying them. Please keep those worlds separate. Don’t try to “friend” your employees on Facebook, and don’t follow their personal blogs. (If they write career based ones, that’s a different story.) The Evil HR Lady Rule of Work Relationships is that when you are with people from the office you are at the office. Please don’t turn Facebook into the office. (And for heaven’s sake, don’t friend one or two members of your staff, but not the rest. Gah.)
4. One bad statement or questionable picture does not mean a person is a bad employee. We all make mistakes and things can be taken out of context as well. You cannot control it if your “friends” post pictures of you from 10 years ago. Don’t punish your 30 year old employees for something they did at 18.
Right now, I think both employees and employers should use caution when approaching social media at work. Companies need policies. And everyone should stop acting like they are in Junior High. It was bad enough the first time.
MY THOUGHTS
of course a boss and her staff can be friends. they just need to draw clear lines between professional and personal. it can be tricky. but not impossible. as for FB, i think any attack on any person should not be made public. and yes, i'm all for firing someone who would say something bad about the company. that's normally in the rules of conduct.
By Suzanne Lucas | January 21, 2011
Facebook is a tool used by teenagers to torment each other and for adults to complain about their bosses, right? Except that your rude commment about your boss or your coworker, or your inapproriate comments about stupid stuff you did could land you on the curb.
Right now the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is preparing to hear a case where an employee was fired after criticizing her boss on Facebook. (Jon Hyman has a round up of information on this union firing.) But, the NLRB deals largely (although not exclusively) with union employees, who are definitely not “at will” employees, but are under contract.
I still think you should be careful.
I hear the screeching about free speech right now. Well, yes, you have the right to free speech, but I also believe that companies should have the right to terminate people who use that speech to denigrate the company. Free speech, not free from consequences speech. (And remember, it’s only government suppression of speech that is illegal.) Most employees in the United States are at will employees, which means that there is no contract of employment and either party can end it for any or no reason, as long as the reason isn’t an illegal one. For instance, you can’t fire an employee because she’s pregnant, but you can fire a pregnant employee, as long as the pregnancy isn’t the reason.
So, why am I in favor of companies being able to terminate an employee for online behavior? (These things, of course, aren’t limited to Facebook. Myspace, Twitter, and blogs are all good candidates for firing). Here are 3 Reasons.
1. Easy firing=easy hiring. I want companies to hire people. In fact, my fondest wish is that all my readers who are searching for jobs find one this year. The more restrictions government places on terminating employees, the more hesitant companies are to hire new people.
2. Bad judgment isn’t limited to online behavior. Companies need employees they can trust to make good decisions. If you lack the critical thinking skills to say, “Hmmm, if I post that my boss is a jerk, my boss just might find out about it,” then you probably lack the critical thinking skills to do your job. Yes, people vent. But the internet is not private. And anyone who thinks they can trust all their 476 friends to keep something quiet isn’t someone I want on my staff.
3. Companies should be able to presume loyalty. I know, I know, your company doesn’t care much about your career and they have no problem firing you, so why should you care about them? Because they pay you to care about them. In a pre-internet case where Delta airline employee was fired over a letter to the editor, “[t]he court in that case held that there ‘”is an implied duty of loyalty, with regard to public communications, that employees owe to their employers.’ Stating that Mr. Marsh violated this implied duty of loyalty by publicly disparaging Delta, the court found that his termination was just.” We forbid employees from giving information to the competitor, which would damage the company, so why not forbid employees from posting information that would hurt the company? The exception to this is when the company is engaging in illegal activity. Then employees should speak out and should be afforded whistleblower protection.
However, I also think that bosses should stay off their employees’ and candidates’ Facebook pages. Why? Because it opens up whole cans of fire-breathing worms. And, once those cans are open, the worms have no interest in going back in. Here’s why:
1. There are things you don’t want to know. Honestly and truly, there are things out there about your employees that you don’t want to know. Even though you can legally fire people easily, few companies allow you to actually do that. And there are lots of unemployed lawyers who would be happy to take your employee’s case.
2. Some information cannot be considered. Yes, you know the gender, age, race, national origin and, frequently, religion and sexual orientation of your employees. But, you can’t make decisions based on this information, so don’t browse Facebook looking for it. Wonder if Jim is gay? What about that candidate? She looked Jewish. Hmmmm. Seriously, even though you wouldn’t make a decision based on protected class information, doesn’t mean you won’t have to defend against it. If you don’t know, your defense is much easier.
3. Your employees are not your friends. I know, you’re a great boss and everyone loves you, but remember they love you because you are paying them. Please keep those worlds separate. Don’t try to “friend” your employees on Facebook, and don’t follow their personal blogs. (If they write career based ones, that’s a different story.) The Evil HR Lady Rule of Work Relationships is that when you are with people from the office you are at the office. Please don’t turn Facebook into the office. (And for heaven’s sake, don’t friend one or two members of your staff, but not the rest. Gah.)
4. One bad statement or questionable picture does not mean a person is a bad employee. We all make mistakes and things can be taken out of context as well. You cannot control it if your “friends” post pictures of you from 10 years ago. Don’t punish your 30 year old employees for something they did at 18.
Right now, I think both employees and employers should use caution when approaching social media at work. Companies need policies. And everyone should stop acting like they are in Junior High. It was bad enough the first time.
MY THOUGHTS
of course a boss and her staff can be friends. they just need to draw clear lines between professional and personal. it can be tricky. but not impossible. as for FB, i think any attack on any person should not be made public. and yes, i'm all for firing someone who would say something bad about the company. that's normally in the rules of conduct.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
PARENTS AND KIDS AS FACEBOOK BUDDIES
Facebook Relationships: Natural for parents & teens
January 19, 2011 | Debbie Turner
http://www.onlinesocialmedia.net/20110119/facebook-relationships-natural-for-parents-teens/
The ever-growing Facebook is sometimes portrayed in a negative light and sometimes there has been the perception that teenagers who are using it are hooked on it and may also use it in rather a covert way, sometimes at the expense of good relationships with their parents.
However an article by Bernd Debusmann over on Reuters goes a long way to dispelling this idea by looking at results from a survey carried out by Kaplan Test Prep. It showed that perhaps contrary to popular opinion, around two-thirds of teenagers in America are happy to share social networking with their parents by having them as Facebook friends. However a note of caution is that 16% of those who have parents among their Facebook friends, only accept them as a prerequisite to signing up.
Not all teenagers are happy to accept their parents as Facebook friends either and 38% say that if their parents send them a friend request they ignore it. However executive director of Kaplan, Kristen Campbell said, “Facebook … continues to be the new frontier in the ever evolving relationship between parent and child,” and also points out that the majority of teens “are not hiding and that is positive.” It’s also noted that for many it opens lines of communication that did not previously exist and also allows teenagers to claim an amount of independence.
Campbell also describes using Facebook as a ‘natural step’ for those that have grown up as part of the Internet generation. Another article, this time by Bridget Tyler on KidGlue, also looks at these survey results and gives some good advice to parents out there that may be finding it hard to be a parent in the social networking age.
What are your thoughts on this and are you surprised by just how open most teenagers are? Where should parents draw the line at involvement in their teen’s social networking lives? Why not let us know by sending us your comments.
MY THOUGHTS
i feel so relieved i am so past teenage years. my mom has a facebook account(and she doesn't know how to use the computer). as a teenager i probably won't like to have my parents in my network. but then, in retrospect, i doubt we would have been allowed to get into social networking sites. i doubt that very very much.
January 19, 2011 | Debbie Turner
http://www.onlinesocialmedia.net/20110119/facebook-relationships-natural-for-parents-teens/
The ever-growing Facebook is sometimes portrayed in a negative light and sometimes there has been the perception that teenagers who are using it are hooked on it and may also use it in rather a covert way, sometimes at the expense of good relationships with their parents.
However an article by Bernd Debusmann over on Reuters goes a long way to dispelling this idea by looking at results from a survey carried out by Kaplan Test Prep. It showed that perhaps contrary to popular opinion, around two-thirds of teenagers in America are happy to share social networking with their parents by having them as Facebook friends. However a note of caution is that 16% of those who have parents among their Facebook friends, only accept them as a prerequisite to signing up.
Not all teenagers are happy to accept their parents as Facebook friends either and 38% say that if their parents send them a friend request they ignore it. However executive director of Kaplan, Kristen Campbell said, “Facebook … continues to be the new frontier in the ever evolving relationship between parent and child,” and also points out that the majority of teens “are not hiding and that is positive.” It’s also noted that for many it opens lines of communication that did not previously exist and also allows teenagers to claim an amount of independence.
Campbell also describes using Facebook as a ‘natural step’ for those that have grown up as part of the Internet generation. Another article, this time by Bridget Tyler on KidGlue, also looks at these survey results and gives some good advice to parents out there that may be finding it hard to be a parent in the social networking age.
What are your thoughts on this and are you surprised by just how open most teenagers are? Where should parents draw the line at involvement in their teen’s social networking lives? Why not let us know by sending us your comments.
MY THOUGHTS
i feel so relieved i am so past teenage years. my mom has a facebook account(and she doesn't know how to use the computer). as a teenager i probably won't like to have my parents in my network. but then, in retrospect, i doubt we would have been allowed to get into social networking sites. i doubt that very very much.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
does social networking impact work
Does Social Networking Impact Work? Survey Reports
Social media sites are becoming some of the most heavily trafficked sites on the internet, including in the workplace, according to a recent poll. The survey, conducted by Right Management, gathered data from over 1,000 respondents concerning employee use of social networking sites during work hours.
While about half of the organizations reported blocking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, others have decided to use the social networking sites as a business tool. Organizations are using the sites to reach out to clients, potential customers, employees, and job seekers.
Overall, 18 percent of respondents reported that social networking on the job often interferes with productivity, while 41 percent said that it sometimes does.
The survey also found some interesting statistics comparing the following criteria:
•Company Size: 51% of workers at an organization with 10,000 or more employees responded that it seldom interferes, compared to 41% at smaller organizations.
•Department: 62% of IT professionals said it seldom interferes, compared to 30% of sales professionals who reported that it often interferes.
•Age: 47% of workers aged 35-44 said that it seldom interferes, compared to 35% of those 18-24.
Organizations need to keep up with the growing presence of social media sites. A recent poll by Manpower suggested that as many as 75 percent of employers do not have a formal policy concerning the use of social networking sites. There are social media policies available on HR.BLR.com (subscription or trial-membership required):
MY THOUGHTS
better include this in the policy manual. it can really affect productivity. i think i won't mind when people can still come-up with excellent work even if social networking sites are not barred. but that's rare. i'm pretty sure, excellent professionals won't have time to use facebook at work. they will be too busy producing results.
Social media sites are becoming some of the most heavily trafficked sites on the internet, including in the workplace, according to a recent poll. The survey, conducted by Right Management, gathered data from over 1,000 respondents concerning employee use of social networking sites during work hours.
While about half of the organizations reported blocking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, others have decided to use the social networking sites as a business tool. Organizations are using the sites to reach out to clients, potential customers, employees, and job seekers.
Overall, 18 percent of respondents reported that social networking on the job often interferes with productivity, while 41 percent said that it sometimes does.
The survey also found some interesting statistics comparing the following criteria:
•Company Size: 51% of workers at an organization with 10,000 or more employees responded that it seldom interferes, compared to 41% at smaller organizations.
•Department: 62% of IT professionals said it seldom interferes, compared to 30% of sales professionals who reported that it often interferes.
•Age: 47% of workers aged 35-44 said that it seldom interferes, compared to 35% of those 18-24.
Organizations need to keep up with the growing presence of social media sites. A recent poll by Manpower suggested that as many as 75 percent of employers do not have a formal policy concerning the use of social networking sites. There are social media policies available on HR.BLR.com (subscription or trial-membership required):
MY THOUGHTS
better include this in the policy manual. it can really affect productivity. i think i won't mind when people can still come-up with excellent work even if social networking sites are not barred. but that's rare. i'm pretty sure, excellent professionals won't have time to use facebook at work. they will be too busy producing results.
can facebook hurt relationships
Facebook And Relationships: Is There A Dark Side To Social Media Network Overshare?
By: Wilson Kerr
Every so often a disruptive innovation take root so rapidly that negative sociological impacts are masked by the euphoria of the initial rush to acceptance.
Facebook has over 500 Million users and the average active user spends 55 minutes per day checking or updating their newsfeed. If we assume all users are “active”, this amounts to (the equivalent of) an incredible 52,279 YEARS per day spent on Facebook.
There is no doubt that Facebook has reconnected old friends, served as an easy bridge for quick communication, and allowed people to share their business and personal lives in a new and exciting ways. But is there a societal downside to this torrent of flippant, instantaneous, and often narcissistic overshare? Aside from the security and privacy implications of sharing inappropriate details of location or age or sexuality, there is another element that I am not sure has been explored fully.
Is Facebook causing divorce? Increasing evidence suggests that easy access to out-of-context personal details and feelings from others can become a distraction and temptation that fuels the exploration of unconstructive possibilities by the recipient. Can quickly and easily reconnecting with people from one’s past cause the reawakening of feelings that are out of context and likely irrelevant, yet real and powerful enough to cause marital disruption?
Clearly, Facebook does not cause divorce, as there are any manner of ways to end a marriage, if one is so inclined. But this new form of communication is clearly having some effect on relationships, as it opens a door to the past instantly and fuels communication between people in a radically new way.
While data is as scant as Facebook is new, an article from Australia digs into the issue, stating that, “British divorce firm Divorce-Online said Facebook was cited in one-fifth of the divorce petitions it processed last year…Australian Family Relationships Clearing House manager Elly Robinson said online behavior was causing friction in households. “Relationships develop more quickly online because inhibitions are lowered, it’s easy to exchange information, people are online 24/7, there’s an (endless) amount of people you can link up with who are there for the same reason, real life pressures fade away … it’s a bit of a fantasy world,” she said.
CNET blogger Chris Matyszczyk has written several posts about this subject and, in one, explores the notion of Facebook fueling a sort of addictive jealousy feedback loop, whereby potentially damaging communication is happened upon by one partner, causing a disruptive, endless loop of distrust to form, with Facebook at the center of this storm of discontent.
Obviously, a phone call or an email or letter can accomplish a reconnection to an old flame, if one is so inclined. But Facebook allows this curiosity about the past, and the temptation to explore it, to become actionable in a matter of seconds. Like a magic, instantaneous worldwide time machine Rolodex, complete with photos and (often) intimate details, Facebook fosters connections and the sharing of thoughts and feelings that are perhaps detrimental to one’s current situation, or at least out of context.
The tendency to peek into the lives of others that Facebook fosters is by-design and how Facebook’s business model works. The more “what’s on your mind” thoughts and details shared and read, the more pages viewed, the more ads displayed, the more money Facebook makes ($800 Million annually, at last count). And this is largely positive and benign. But this also can lead to the turning over of emotional rocks from the past, that are sometimes best left undisturbed. People often do not think about how their personally charged thoughts and feelings will affect others, when broadcast to a wide audience, with a range of perspectives and loyalties.
Living in the moment, being present, and looking ahead is not something Americans are particularly good at. We tend to yearn for “days gone by” and wish we had done things differently. We devour nostalgia with an insatiable appetite for “a simpler time”. Classic Coke, The Wonder Years, Happy Days, Back To The Future, That 70's Show…the list goes on and on. Being thoughtful and aware and mindful is very important and this is especially true when communicating with others.
Facebook, on the other hand, tends to encourage flip, often thoughtless interaction and communication that sometimes causes unforeseen harm. A letter can be torn up. A private conversation held in-trust can be kept secret. A harsh exchange can be apologized for and forgotten about. But a Facebook post is different. It can be forwarded and copied and viewed without limit. A flip curiosity about “what might have been” or a personal complaint from the moment, can become locked in and temporary feelings pushed out to others without context are easily mistaken for deeper sentiments.
Those who are divorced can share their personal joy and newfound “freedom” with trusted friends who might be in the throes of a difficult period of their marriage. This overshare of thoughts, photos, and “advice” from those who have not succeeded with the hard work required to keep a marriage intact is often counter-productive and can even be purposefully disruptive.
For a frightening look at just how public Facebook is, try typing the search term (in quotes) “don’t tell anyone” into the Openbook site. This is a live searchable feed of real Facebook posts, created to demonstrate the perils of Facebook overshare.
Facebook is a powerful new social networking took with many benefits. Marriage is not always easy. Both of these statements are true. But all who use Facebook should be mindful of the need to be sensitive to others and use extra care when communicating to your network while temporarily blinded by emotion or distress.
MY THOUGHTS
this is getting really uncomfortable. come to think of it, there's so much truth in this article.
By: Wilson Kerr
Every so often a disruptive innovation take root so rapidly that negative sociological impacts are masked by the euphoria of the initial rush to acceptance.
Facebook has over 500 Million users and the average active user spends 55 minutes per day checking or updating their newsfeed. If we assume all users are “active”, this amounts to (the equivalent of) an incredible 52,279 YEARS per day spent on Facebook.
There is no doubt that Facebook has reconnected old friends, served as an easy bridge for quick communication, and allowed people to share their business and personal lives in a new and exciting ways. But is there a societal downside to this torrent of flippant, instantaneous, and often narcissistic overshare? Aside from the security and privacy implications of sharing inappropriate details of location or age or sexuality, there is another element that I am not sure has been explored fully.
Is Facebook causing divorce? Increasing evidence suggests that easy access to out-of-context personal details and feelings from others can become a distraction and temptation that fuels the exploration of unconstructive possibilities by the recipient. Can quickly and easily reconnecting with people from one’s past cause the reawakening of feelings that are out of context and likely irrelevant, yet real and powerful enough to cause marital disruption?
Clearly, Facebook does not cause divorce, as there are any manner of ways to end a marriage, if one is so inclined. But this new form of communication is clearly having some effect on relationships, as it opens a door to the past instantly and fuels communication between people in a radically new way.
While data is as scant as Facebook is new, an article from Australia digs into the issue, stating that, “British divorce firm Divorce-Online said Facebook was cited in one-fifth of the divorce petitions it processed last year…Australian Family Relationships Clearing House manager Elly Robinson said online behavior was causing friction in households. “Relationships develop more quickly online because inhibitions are lowered, it’s easy to exchange information, people are online 24/7, there’s an (endless) amount of people you can link up with who are there for the same reason, real life pressures fade away … it’s a bit of a fantasy world,” she said.
CNET blogger Chris Matyszczyk has written several posts about this subject and, in one, explores the notion of Facebook fueling a sort of addictive jealousy feedback loop, whereby potentially damaging communication is happened upon by one partner, causing a disruptive, endless loop of distrust to form, with Facebook at the center of this storm of discontent.
Obviously, a phone call or an email or letter can accomplish a reconnection to an old flame, if one is so inclined. But Facebook allows this curiosity about the past, and the temptation to explore it, to become actionable in a matter of seconds. Like a magic, instantaneous worldwide time machine Rolodex, complete with photos and (often) intimate details, Facebook fosters connections and the sharing of thoughts and feelings that are perhaps detrimental to one’s current situation, or at least out of context.
The tendency to peek into the lives of others that Facebook fosters is by-design and how Facebook’s business model works. The more “what’s on your mind” thoughts and details shared and read, the more pages viewed, the more ads displayed, the more money Facebook makes ($800 Million annually, at last count). And this is largely positive and benign. But this also can lead to the turning over of emotional rocks from the past, that are sometimes best left undisturbed. People often do not think about how their personally charged thoughts and feelings will affect others, when broadcast to a wide audience, with a range of perspectives and loyalties.
Living in the moment, being present, and looking ahead is not something Americans are particularly good at. We tend to yearn for “days gone by” and wish we had done things differently. We devour nostalgia with an insatiable appetite for “a simpler time”. Classic Coke, The Wonder Years, Happy Days, Back To The Future, That 70's Show…the list goes on and on. Being thoughtful and aware and mindful is very important and this is especially true when communicating with others.
Facebook, on the other hand, tends to encourage flip, often thoughtless interaction and communication that sometimes causes unforeseen harm. A letter can be torn up. A private conversation held in-trust can be kept secret. A harsh exchange can be apologized for and forgotten about. But a Facebook post is different. It can be forwarded and copied and viewed without limit. A flip curiosity about “what might have been” or a personal complaint from the moment, can become locked in and temporary feelings pushed out to others without context are easily mistaken for deeper sentiments.
Those who are divorced can share their personal joy and newfound “freedom” with trusted friends who might be in the throes of a difficult period of their marriage. This overshare of thoughts, photos, and “advice” from those who have not succeeded with the hard work required to keep a marriage intact is often counter-productive and can even be purposefully disruptive.
For a frightening look at just how public Facebook is, try typing the search term (in quotes) “don’t tell anyone” into the Openbook site. This is a live searchable feed of real Facebook posts, created to demonstrate the perils of Facebook overshare.
Facebook is a powerful new social networking took with many benefits. Marriage is not always easy. Both of these statements are true. But all who use Facebook should be mindful of the need to be sensitive to others and use extra care when communicating to your network while temporarily blinded by emotion or distress.
MY THOUGHTS
this is getting really uncomfortable. come to think of it, there's so much truth in this article.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Privacy is Dead: How to Network Now
Privacy is Dead: How To Network Now
By Linda Stern
Facebook recently changed its privacy settings and started pasting personal data all over the web, prompting some users to quit the site and many more to scrub their profiles of interesting bits. Google “accidentally” collected massive amounts of random personal data while its roving vans were supposed to be mapping streets. A waitress in North Carolina was fired after she used her status update to complain about a lousy tip. Oh… and your underwear is showing.
Just kidding about that last one, but these are clearly tough times for people who care about their privacy. These events should force us all to accept the truth: It’s over. If you’re using Facebook, Google, Twitter, a credit card, an online banking site, or any networked computer you’ve already got billions of bits of data floating everywhere. And that data is handled and massaged by thousands of clerks, coders, advertising consultants, and random wastepaper-basket emptiers. Even if everyone involved aims to “do no evil” as Google’s motto claims, mistakes happen.
So it falls to you to try to make sure those mistakes — or outright thefts — don’t hurt you. That doesn’t mean going net free or even living off of the social networking grid; that’s just too big a sacrifice for most people. But it does mean being more judicious about how your info is handled. And it also means choosing what to worry about and what not to worry about. Here are some recommendations:
Worry about your financial data. Use only the most trustworthy banking and financial management sites, and monitor your accounts regularly to make sure that there isn’t any unauthorized access going on. CBS MoneyWatch has produced an excellent guide to protecting your financial identity.
Accept some lack of privacy for the rest of your data. It’s the price you’ll pay for online fun and convenience. Does it matter if everyone knows you’re a soccer player or gardener or lover of old school hip hop music? Maybe not. But do you want to “like” particular products or companies that will use your click as an unpaid endorsement? If you suspect that publicizing your strong political opinions or your costly stored-at-home gold coin collection could be dangerous to your career or safety, keep them off of your social profiles.
Check your Facebook settings. A nifty new program called Privacy Scanner can check your Facebook settings to make sure they’re set to the tightest levels. But don’t get too comfortable. Facebook has shown it considers privacy settings a fleeting choice. Assume that anything you’ve ever posted on the site could eventually be made public.
Be business savvy. It’s good to have some workplace friends and business colleagues as online friends. It makes you seem more like a well-rounded person and can help you build connections with people who might hire you or throw business your way in the future. But don’t grouse about work or customers on Facebook or Twitter, and don’t annoy your ‘friends’ by simply promoting your company with every post.
Limit your photo fun. People who aren’t your friends can often see pictures of you. Even though you can restrict the distribution of pictures you post yourself through your privacy settings in Facebook, other people can post pictures of you that can become public. Furthermore, both Twitter and Facebook consider themselves owners of the photos you post. So skip the beer pong shots and reserve that pole-dancing episode for your boyfriend, and only then if you really trust him to never break up with you and post it himself.
MY THOUGTHS
it's really very unsettling when someone else posts your pics for everyone else to see. i think there should be a rule that we should ask permission first before posting pics with others on it. or maybe just don't tag the pics. i used to just post pics mysef not knowing that i should change the privacy settings. now i know a better.
By Linda Stern
Facebook recently changed its privacy settings and started pasting personal data all over the web, prompting some users to quit the site and many more to scrub their profiles of interesting bits. Google “accidentally” collected massive amounts of random personal data while its roving vans were supposed to be mapping streets. A waitress in North Carolina was fired after she used her status update to complain about a lousy tip. Oh… and your underwear is showing.
Just kidding about that last one, but these are clearly tough times for people who care about their privacy. These events should force us all to accept the truth: It’s over. If you’re using Facebook, Google, Twitter, a credit card, an online banking site, or any networked computer you’ve already got billions of bits of data floating everywhere. And that data is handled and massaged by thousands of clerks, coders, advertising consultants, and random wastepaper-basket emptiers. Even if everyone involved aims to “do no evil” as Google’s motto claims, mistakes happen.
So it falls to you to try to make sure those mistakes — or outright thefts — don’t hurt you. That doesn’t mean going net free or even living off of the social networking grid; that’s just too big a sacrifice for most people. But it does mean being more judicious about how your info is handled. And it also means choosing what to worry about and what not to worry about. Here are some recommendations:
Worry about your financial data. Use only the most trustworthy banking and financial management sites, and monitor your accounts regularly to make sure that there isn’t any unauthorized access going on. CBS MoneyWatch has produced an excellent guide to protecting your financial identity.
Accept some lack of privacy for the rest of your data. It’s the price you’ll pay for online fun and convenience. Does it matter if everyone knows you’re a soccer player or gardener or lover of old school hip hop music? Maybe not. But do you want to “like” particular products or companies that will use your click as an unpaid endorsement? If you suspect that publicizing your strong political opinions or your costly stored-at-home gold coin collection could be dangerous to your career or safety, keep them off of your social profiles.
Check your Facebook settings. A nifty new program called Privacy Scanner can check your Facebook settings to make sure they’re set to the tightest levels. But don’t get too comfortable. Facebook has shown it considers privacy settings a fleeting choice. Assume that anything you’ve ever posted on the site could eventually be made public.
Be business savvy. It’s good to have some workplace friends and business colleagues as online friends. It makes you seem more like a well-rounded person and can help you build connections with people who might hire you or throw business your way in the future. But don’t grouse about work or customers on Facebook or Twitter, and don’t annoy your ‘friends’ by simply promoting your company with every post.
Limit your photo fun. People who aren’t your friends can often see pictures of you. Even though you can restrict the distribution of pictures you post yourself through your privacy settings in Facebook, other people can post pictures of you that can become public. Furthermore, both Twitter and Facebook consider themselves owners of the photos you post. So skip the beer pong shots and reserve that pole-dancing episode for your boyfriend, and only then if you really trust him to never break up with you and post it himself.
MY THOUGTHS
it's really very unsettling when someone else posts your pics for everyone else to see. i think there should be a rule that we should ask permission first before posting pics with others on it. or maybe just don't tag the pics. i used to just post pics mysef not knowing that i should change the privacy settings. now i know a better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)