-
Wednesday, March 28th, 2012
A report published this week by a cross party committee of MPs and peers recommended that legislation should be introduced to force Google to censor search results, particularly in relation to protecting privacy. The rise and rise of social networking and the Internet has meant that cases such as the super injunction cases last year have spread virally over social media – Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc. So, despite the law insisting that identities and personal details were not revealed, and the press bending over backwards to abide by the rulings, the news got out anyway. The Ryan Giggs super injunction was tweeted over 75,000 times before it finally became obvious that the injunction could not be made to work.
It was following this that the PM set up the cross party committee to investigate free speech and privacy. However, the recommendation to force Google et al to censor results is likely to come under fire.
The suggestion raises several issues.
Firstly, whilst it may currently be legislation regarding privacy, how easily could this legislation be amended to be more far-reaching? Censorship in any form bodes ill, and freedom of speech should be fought for. There is no reason for content that has been considered to be an invasion of privacy not to be removed, or for heartier self-regulation to take place, but attempting to prevent gossip – which appears intrinsic to human nature – is likely to continue to be an onerous task, and it is inevitable that we will see more and more online reputation management agencies appearing to protect brands and so on.
But should a search engine (or Facebook or Twitter) be forced into a level of censorship determined often only by a single judge? What if there is an appeal or what if the content should be released in the public interest? How could this possibly be policed and enforced?
As a spokesperson for Google said, “Requiring search engines to screen the content of their web pages would be like asking phone companies to listen in on every call made across their networks for potentially suspicious activity.”
The committee is arguing for protection of privacy laws to go beyond the current ‘press’ eg newspapers, magazines, TV etc and also include Twitter, Facebook, Google and so on. As we move into an age of higher bandwidth and hence more innovation, the likelihood is that new social networking sites and tools will continue to spring up on an almost hourly basis. Endeavouring to imagine or legislate for all new tools, apps, sites could prove not only burdensome but actually impossible.
How could such censorship affect businesses or brands? The vast majority of the high profile cases have concerned celebrities and many brands have had to distance themselves from their celeb endorsers after bad news has been leaked or made its way onto the Internet, where it can now spread far more quickly than ever before. Google currently offers the chance to report a page or offensive etc content, and the argument from the Big G is that no further action is required beyond the ‘victim’ (for want of a better word) requesting the removal of said content.
The vagaries of Google, as we all know, mean that frequently such requests appear to be ignored, or the process drags on interminably whilst the content just sits there in the SERPs. The protection of celebrities’ i.e. individuals’ privacy may need to come above protection of business and brands reputation but does existing legislation not already cover this without requiring to force censorship on some of the biggest sites in the world?
Do you feel that the UK government should have a say in what the search engines and social networks are permitted to show to UK audiences?
Tags: censorship, committee, cross party, Google, MP, privacy, search results, serps
Posted in Blog, Google, Social Media
-
Thursday, January 26th, 2012
There does seem to be a constant erosion of privacy by social networks, and the announcement this week that Google’s latest privacy changes will use data across the entire product set is already subject to criticism. LinkedIn introduced social ads last summer which had a default opt-out setting for your name and photo to be used publicly in advertising on the network. Facebook has caused untold furores with its many privacy changes and this week is ‘forcing’ users to adopt the new Timeline.
The need to monetise social networks and apps and services is of course standard business practice. However, the consumer created content which leads to the growth and potential of services such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube etc should not come as cheaply as it does to the network. The harvesting and use of personal details in order to attract advertisers is the payment that the users have to make in order to generate the profits for the network. This is not on a commission or affiliate level, but is ‘gifted’ freely to the network to do with as they choose. However, the depths to which some social networks seem willing to go in order to maximise this “free” content seems to increase rather than decrease over time. It is this seemingly never ending of the pushing of the limits of privacy decency with little respect for opt-in, permissions, or even the awareness of the users, that is worrying privacy advocates.
Despite protestations to the contrary, there would seem to be a casual yet ruthless attitude towards users’ privacy, mainly due to the cut throat market the networks are in. Facebook has been forced to add the strapline – it’s free and it always will be – after unfounded rumours that users would be charged to use the social site, leaving Facebook with one less route to capitalising on their enormous user base. (Friends Reunited, for instance, made its money by charging a nominal £4-5 per annum to access additional data on friends such as email addresses). However, the continuous drip drip introduction of default settings that require action by the user, rather than opt in, is telling about the attitudes which prevail amongst the internet giants.
LinkedIn require you to opt out from having your name and photo used on advertising across the site. Although this was introduced last summer, it is likely that a vast proportion of the users of LinkedIn remain unaware of the change. For many, the account and privacy settings on Facebook are simply too complex to work out what is being shown to whom. Google+ endeavoured to address these concerns by allowing you to choose precisely the people with whom you shared content, but the inclusion of Google+ posts in top search results, as well as the latest privacy changes across all of Google’s real estate, may have unravelled that feelgood strategy.
There have been users leaving the social networks in protest, but for many the privacy issue, or rather the possible results of such policies, is still unclear – what harm does it do me? Meanwhile, there are a number of start ups looking to create privacy enhanced and open source social networks, but the real benefit of social networks is when *everyone* you know is on them and a start up with limited members will struggle to compete with the phenomenal global user base that is Facebook today. (By the end of 2012, it is estimated that more than a billion people will be using Facebook).
How do you feel about the social networks use of your personal data? Would you leave a social network because of its privacy policy? What changes would be one step too far for you to stay?
Tags: facebook, Google, LinkedIn, opt out, opt-in, policy, privacy, Social Media, youtube
Posted in Blog, Social Media
-
Thursday, June 30th, 2011
It seems that Google + has a raft of other uses for serious networkers. For instance, many people looking to make contacts look through LinkedIn profiles and Twitter followers of authoritative or influential people to find new contacts. Facebook Friends can often also be searched in the same manner.
Google+ offers the same facility. So, find one person on Google+ who works at Google (or AN Other Company) and you can suddenly track down more people from their circles. Because the public profiles often give more than just name of company, you can also find their Twitter accounts, Flickr profile etc.
For some, this may mean that a re-assessment of their privacy settings is required. Just because someone has added you to their circle, it does not mean that you wish to know them. And you have no control over whether they make the members of their circles public or not, meaning that your public profile could become very public, and there does not seem to be any way in which you can make some of your profile information public to certain people and not to others.
This is all about being social but all of a sudden, one can feel that your ability to keep information about yourself private, or not 100% in the public domain, is being eroded.
When posting, you can choose which circle(s) see the post and can also disable resharing by clicking on the arrow at the top right of the post.
Navigate your stream using [j] for down and [k] for up.
Upgrade your broadband connection! If you are in a hangout with 10 people all on webcams, and someone decides to start pulling in Youtube content, your connection may do more than just stutter!
Tags: broadband, circles, Google, hangouts, navigation, privacy, stream, tips
Posted in Blog, Google, Social Media, Tips & Tricks
-
Monday, March 14th, 2011
The breaking story today in the social world is the development at Etsy which has led to all buyers’ personal details and purchases being able to be searched by anyone. Whatever they have bought, and whenever they bought it.
The theory behind the changes appears to be that people shop based on the recommendations of their ‘circle’ of friends. It’s all about making shopping ‘social’, but the debate has to be do you want every purchase you make through a website showing up on Google under your name? Along with your email address, real name and possibly even your Facebook link?
If you ask on Facebook or Twitter which make of washing machine your followers or friends would recommend, that is your choice to reveal that you are planning to buy a washing machine. Or a hand-embroidered pink leotard to wear on your work at home days. Or whatever you plan to buy.
Purchases that you make normally are private unless you CHOOSE to review a product, ask your friends about it, or boast about the great deal you have just managed.
Etsy have just turned that privacy on its head with its PeopleSearch facility, by opting in all registered users to the new search system and opening up the database to the search engine spiders. You can opt out, but a new user should not need to trawl forums and consumer-run Etsy help sites to find out to opt out.
Whether or not this is permissible under strict UK privacy laws about data protection remains to be seen, but it is possible that Etsy may find themselves facing a fairly expensive lawsuit if they don’t rescind this functionality fairly quickly. Rather like Facebook did with Beacon.
Tags: data protection, E-Commerce, etsy, personal details, privacy, search, user
Posted in Blog, E-Commerce, SEM Industry, Website Usability
-
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011
On May 25th, a new EU policy directive is due to be introduced which could chaos for websites, advertisers and consumers. In trying to prevent behaviour tracking (and possible privacy invasion) through cookies, headers and the like, the EU is insisting that ‘explicit consent’ must be gained for any tracking of personal info.
What this seems to ignore is that cookies are used for far more than behavioural tracking. Cookies are also used to make log-ins to often visited websites a doddle. If websites and businesses have to gain explicit consent for each visitor who visits a site, then consumers are going to be faced with a plethora of pop-up boxes requesting such consent, and lengthy explanations as to what information will be gathered, how, why, etc.
Whilst the FTC is also looking at solutions to protect privacy, EU sites are going to have to solve this problem in short order, whilst even the DCMS admits it has not even drawn up the guidelines yet.
Internet marketers and site owners know that each request for information causes a percentage drop in conversions and clicks. This directive could potentially drive customers and audience to visit sites outside the EU which do not request consent just to remember a simple cookie-based log-in combo.
Browsers already offer plug-ins and extensions to protect users privacy, as well as software being available to escape targeted advertising cookies and headers, such as Noscript, Beeftaco, AdBlockPlus.
This may yet prove to be a policy directive that has been produced as a knee jerk reaction to a problem that does not exist, because of the criticism levelled at the likes of Phorm. More importantly though seems to be the fact that very few people within the industry appeared to notice the public consultation which took place regarding this new directive, which took place last autumn.
How is your business planning to deal with the directive? Let us know your thoughts.
Tags: cookies, eu, policy directive, privacy
Posted in Blog, SEM Industry, Small Business Resources
-
Monday, December 14th, 2009
Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s statement on American TV last week seems to have started a minor furore about privacy and Google’s attitude to it.
Firefox CEO has responded by posting the link to the Firefox add-on to use Bing as a search engine instead/as well as Google, even though this reduces the income Firefox gets from Google searches.
What do you think about Google (or anyone else) keeping information from its users? Is there a line that can be crossed or is it down to each of us to seek the necessary encryption, anonymity solutions to protect ourselves?
Tags: Google, privacy
Posted in Google, SEM Industry
