Monthly Archives: August 2011

Facebook’s Big Privacy Changes: An Overview [PICS]

Facebook’s Big Privacy Changes: An Overview [PICS]

[August 24, 2011 – the article on Mashable]

Facebook unveiled a massive wave of privacy changes on Tuesday [August 23, 2011]. It’s one of the biggest privacy overhauls in the company’s history, one that includes more than a dozen changes to profiles, status updates, locations and tags.

In fact, there are so many changes that it’s easy to get confused about what changes Facebook is making and what impact they will have on your privacy. The updates are significant enough that Facebook will make every single one of its 750+ million users go through a tutorial about the updated privacy settings.

That’s why we’ve written this short guide to all the changes Facebook has implemented. Refer to this page for a quick rundown of all the new privacy features now available on the world’s largest social network.

Profiles

The major privacy changes to Facebook Profiles include:

  • Greater profile control: Profile visibility controls now appear directly next to content when you edit your profile. For example, if you only want your close friends to see which music you like, you can change it directly from the profile editing page.
  • In-line cues: Facebook will display a globe, friend or gear icon to indicate whether a piece of content is public, only seen by friends or customized for a friend group or list.
  • “View Profile As”: The “View Profile As” feature has been moved from the Privacy Settings Page to the top right-hand corner of the user profile. This is designed to make it more accessible.
  • Overhaul of the Privacy Page: The privacy overhaul will result in a much cleaner and simpler Privacy Page, since most of the privacy settings are now integrated at the profile page level.

Screenshots: Facebook Privacy Changes

Profiles

The major privacy changes to Facebook Profiles include:

  • Greater profile control: Profile visibility controls now appear directly next to content when you edit your profile. For example, if you only want your close friends to see which music you like, you can change it directly from the profile editing page.
  • In-line cues: Facebook will display a globe, friend or gear icon to indicate whether a piece of content is public, only seen by friends or customized for a friend group or list.
  • “View Profile As”: The “View Profile As” feature has been moved from the Privacy Settings Page to the top right-hand corner of the user profile. This is designed to make it more accessible.
  • Overhaul of the Privacy Page: The privacy overhaul will result in a much cleaner and simpler Privacy Page, since most of the privacy settings are now integrated at the profile page level.

Tags

The major privacy changes to Facebook Tags include:

  • Tag reviews: Facebook has implemented a system where users can approve or reject photo, status or location tags before they appear on their profiles. This profile can be turned on or off, depending on user preference.
  • Photo tagging changes: Because of the tag reviews feature, Facebook felt comfortable allowing a user to tag anybody in a photo, regardless of whether they are friends. This makes it simpler to tag people in group shots. Users must approve these tags before they appear on a user’s profile.
  • Tags in the Publisher Box: It’s easier to see who is being tagged in a status update. The left-hand side of the Publisher Box now includes an area for managing tags.
  • New untagging features: If a user untags herself from a photo, she will be given the option to send a request to the photo’s uploader to remove it. She will also have the option of blocking that person entirely.

Status Updates & Location

The major privacy changes to location-sharing and status updates include:

  • Public updates: The “Everyone” option in status updates has been renamed “Public” for greater clarity.
  • No more lock icon: The lock icon under the Publisher Box has also been changed. It will now display the globe, friend or gear icon based on whether the update is public, for friends or custom.
  • Facebook Places integration: Facebook Places has been integrated into the Publisher Box. Users can now tag a location into any status update. The same applies to photos and photo albums.
  • No more GPS restriction: Users can now tag any location in a status update or photo, regardless of whether they’re actually nearby. This makes it possible tag a location for a photo album after the user has returned home.
  • Mobile changes: The Facebook Places icon will no longer appear in the mobile apps. Instead a “Nearby” icon will take its place. It will display which users have tagged their location nearby.

Reactions

We asked some privacy and safety groups to respond to Facebook’s privacy changes. Here are two of those responses:

1. Electronic Frontier Foundation:

“We have been asking Facebook for granular controls over privacy setting for some time now, and are pleased that Facebook is now providing inline controls. We also appreciate the introduction of greater control over tagging.

Social network services must ensure that users have ongoing privacy and control over personal information stored with the service. To effectuate that, users need clear user interface that allows them to make informed choices about who sees their data and how it is used. We look forward to seeing how these controls work in operation, to see if users understand them and it reduces the amount of unintentional over sharing on Facebook.

It is also good to see more competition on privacy controls between social networks. Google’s introduction of circles gave users of Plus inline controls for sharing, and now Facebook is providing more granular inline controls. We hope this trend of competition continues.

One disappointment is that Facebook is considering phasing out the setting that could disallow users to prevent their friends from checking them into places. As we understand it, there is no set deadline for this control, but it will be available for at least 60 days, and those who select the option will be grandfathered into keeping it. Even if a user does not want or need the control now, we recommend that they select the option now, to be sure that this control remains available to them.”

2. Connect Safety:

“This is a significant step forward in Facebook privacy for users of all ages – one that all of us Safety Advisory board members really liked. Giving users the chance to think about the level of exposure they want with each status update or photo posted encourages everybody to be a little more mindful about our social-media use, and that’s a good thing as we all work out the social norms of social media.”

Source reference:  http://mashable.com/2011/08/23/facebook-privacy-changes-guide/


[Marketing Interactive] Online Ads Strike A Chord With SEA Consumers

Greenkim: So, everything’s going mainstream… where’s the joy now? Anyway, the article below speaks more qualitative… so I am not too convinced YET. I need hard facts/numbers to prove to me, as always!

—-

Regional – Close to three-quarters of consumers in Southeast Asia (73%) are highly influenced by online ads on social media sites, Nielsen in its latest report concluded.

The study further reveled that the number raised to 80% if the advertised brand had either been liked or gained a following among friends .

When asked how they feel about online advertising which was targeted at them based on previous purchases or websites visited, the majority of consumers in Southeast Asia (74%), , in comparison to only 58% globally, said it ‘made their lives easier’.

According to Nielsen’s APMEA regional managing director of advertising solutions, David Webb the trust and positive attitude shown by SEA consumers towards online advertisements and targeted content provides a wide range of engagement opportunities for companies and their target audience.

“As social media increasingly becomes a mainstream activity throughout the region, brands have been quick to ‘get on board’ with the practice of better understanding and connecting with their consumers when it comes to their advertising strategies, engagement and conversion,” he said.

The Nielsen report found that 69% of SEA consumers have ‘liked’ or followed a brand or company, significantly higher than the global average of 52% and higher again in countries such as Vietnam (79%) and Philippines (75%).

It also showed consumer generated media (consumer opinions posted online) is now one of the most trusted forms of media among the region’s digital consumers with an overall of 54% completely or somewhat trusting them.

“Today’s users of social networking sites in Southeast Asia are increasingly turning to social networking platforms to seek advice or recommendations, get discounts or special offers, or actively recommend products or brands,”

“As local consumers increase in their experience of using the internet, and their levels of confidence and sophistication, so too do they value and trust online content as a source of information,” Webb added.

 

By: Malati Siniah, Malaysia

Source: http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/28086


[Marketing Interactive] Android To Lead Global Mobile Ad Market

Greenkim: This will be exciting to watch! I just wish mobile ads do not end up like web banner ads – i.e. missing out on the readers’ attention just because it is an expected thing (like newspaper ads too)! Then again, do all phones support the same ad format? Here’s what Google/Android is trying to fill that gap…

Global – Android will be the top global mobile ad platform by the end of 2011, according to InMobi’s Mobile Insights Report: Global Edition, Q2 July 2011.

During the quarter, Android captured an additional 1.9% share in the market to reach 16.6%.

While Nokia and Symbian operating system continue to be the top performing mobile platforms across the globe, with 19.6% and 19.0% ad share respectively, their market share has steadily diminished over the quarter.

“Given Android’s ongoing growth around the globe, it’s not surprising to see Google announce its strategic move to acquire Motorola Mobility,” InMobi vice-president global research and marketing James Lamberti, said.

“At the current growth trends, Android is expected to become the top mobile platform in the ad ecosystem by the end of the year and Google is clearly protecting it from competitive threats with the IP assets of Motorola Mobility.”

By: Cream Global, Global

Source: http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/28080


[Marketing Interactive] – RIM To Launch BBM Digital Music Service

Greenkim: This is timely! Trying to gain back market share from Android and Apple – well, let’s keep an eye on this!

—–

Global – BlackBerry maker Research in Motion is in talks with the four largest record companies to launch its own digital music service, sources told CNET.

The new service, a test version of which could be released in the next few weeks, would allow BlackBerry Messaging users to send songs to other subscribers.

Sources said that RIM has already signed a deal with one of the four record companies, and is close to signing with two others.

According to the New York Times, the service will cost less than US$10 dollars per month and will be added to subscribers’ monthly phone bills.

Record companies would share some of the revenue. The service will be available to RIM’s 45 million users worldwide.

However, the new service will be very limited compared to other cloud music services, the Times reports. Unlike music streaming services like Spotify that allow users to stream millions of songs, the RIM version will only allow its users to share about 50 songs with their friends, through playlists and other features.

By: Via Adweek, Global

Source: http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/28079


How YouTube Wins in the Great Unbundling of Cable TV [AdAge]

Greenkim: I do occasionally watch YouTube but not on a regular basis – I get my music video fix here as it’s like an MTV catch-up channel for me! To me, what YouTube truly needs is getting the rights to shows with a big fan base… Glee Season 3 could be on YouTube instead or maybe the BPL!

—–

How YouTube Wins in the Great Unbundling of Cable TV

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:19:21 -0400 | Jim Louderback

Last weekend I attended Vidcon, the annual gathering of YouTube celebrities, video bloggers, fans and others in this burgeoning online space. It was held across the street from CAA, but still worlds apart from the Hollywood glitz and glamour.

But it’s getting closer. Many of the early “vloggers” are now creating polished packages, rather than the slice-of-life vignettes that they built their audiences on. Hollywood agents and hangers-on were more prevalent, as a land-rush of sorts is underway for larger companies to sign up these new stars.

But for me, the most fascinating part of Vidcon was clarity around YouTube’s strategic direction, and what it wants to be when it grows up. I now firmly believe that YouTube is positioning itself to be a “super-bundle,” sitting near the top of the emerging video hierarchy. Let me place them in context, though, by describing how I see the world evolving over the next three years.

The great unbundling
We’re in the early days of a great unbundling of services from transport. Over the past 30 years, TV services and the cables they run upon have been inextricably linked — you paid your cable bill, and got wire and channels together.

In the analog cable world that made sense. But now that most cable is digital, along with carrying two-way internet bits, the transport (which is basically just a collection of 1/0 bits) can finally be separated from the channels.

I know of at least three companies, and I assume there are many more, that are building what looks like a traditional cable TV bundle of local channels, super-nets like CNN and Lifetime and smaller channels like Current and Discovery. But rather than being locked into a single physical cable plant, these bundles will travel across the internet via cable modems and DSL. Soon you’ll be able to buy your TV bundle from, say, Comcast — even though you get your internet service from Time Warner or Verizon. And you’ll be able to watch any of those bundled channels on whatever internet service you happen to be sitting upon — whether it’s the hotel network in the Hanoi Hilton or your smartphone’s 4G service.

But that’s just an intermediate step. I see these unbundled cable services giving way to direct relationships between video content providers and customers. We’re seeing the beginnings of this sort of direct relationship today, most notably with HBO Go and CNN’s new “Everywhere” offering. Currently you need to have a paid relationship with a cable operator to use either of those two amazing services, but it’s only a small leap from the today’s programmer-controlled viewer authentication to tomorrow’s direct financial relationship. And that will give rise to a world with three distinct types of services, delivered over an internet/IP network, and with direct relationships with viewers: Super-Premium Channels, Super-Premium Bundles and Premium Independents.

Super Premium Channels
These single brand services provide libraries of unique and aggregated content to consumers for between $8 and $20 a month. We already have one Super-Premium Channel today — Netflix. And HBO is well positioned to be the second. After that, I’m not so sure. Fox’s recent eight-day exclusion was a cold face slap to Hulu, and unless Apple buys Hulu I don’t see its path to success. Showtime and Epix both have potential, but too much of their content has been licensed to Netflix.

And like as not, consumers will only have pocketbook power to pay for one at a time.

Super-Premium Bundles 
The problem with trying to re-create unbundled bundles of channels is that the content owners control too much power. These cable TV-like bundles will probably end up costing significantly more than a similar services from today’s cable operators. And that, I believe, will lead the big five networks to go direct, delivering their own super-bundles direct to consumers via the internet. Who are these big five? Comcast/NBC, Fox, Viacom, Time Warner and Disney. In the end, these are the companies that have built the biggest portfolios of individual channels and have built enough scale to appeal to men, women and children.

Take Disney, for example. It currently has a lock on kids with Disney and XD, it owns men with ESPN, and have at least a passable offering for women (and if it ends up buying Scripps Networks, they’ll really dominate here, with HGTV, Food and Travel). Disney is already building an extensive, direct to consumer video-based web destination that should equal or surpass what Time Warner’s CNN and HBO units have built. And the first pieces will begin to roll out early next year.

Premium Independents
So what about everyone else? These Super-Premium Bundles and Channels will be able to charge a monthly fee to consumers — everyone else will have to go free and direct via IP to compete. There will be very large businesses built here as well, but they will look much different than today’s independent cable networks. And as an aside, this is the opportunity my company, Revision3, is building for.

How will we watch?
In addition to the great unbundling, we’re also seeing the great “screenification.” We have smartphones, smart computers, smart tablets and smart TVs. The only real difference is the size of the screen. Viewers increasingly want to watch their favorite shows on whichever smart screen is close at hand — and won’t settle for being limited to just the TV in the living room. And history shows that when technology creates an ability for consumers to get their media in new and more convenient ways, they figure out how to do it — legal or not (see Napster, BitTorrent).

So what about YouTube?
YouTube wants to be the sixth Super-Premium Bundle. The company already has a variety of premium content, and if the stories about the new channels they’re funding are true, they’ll have a plethora of premium offerings as well. The new “Cosmic Panda” interface is far more TV-like, and far more focused on helping viewers find a series or sequence of videos to watch — vs. the hunt-and-peck discovery model of the current site. Although the company will still be a vast repository of vacation videos and cats on skateboards, it really hopes to take its place as a legitimate premium service sitting alongside Viacom, Disney and the other three. Even better, it should remain free to all to boot.

How will we know if YouTube is successful? I’ll be keeping my eye on the NFL — when YouTube snaps up a package of football games in the 2013-2014 TV-rights renegotiation, then we’ll know that the company has truly arrived.

Source: http://m.adage.com/article?articleSection=digitalnext&articleSectionName=DigitalNext&articleid=http%3A%2F%2Fadage.com%2Fdigitalnext%2Fpost%3Farticle_id%3D229086


New Data: A Half-Million People Said No to Online Tracking

Bad news for marketers! Soon, you can’t claim that this medium is one that allows you to measure  your campaign’s success quantitatively… Well, then again, users or visitors to online sites (or other digital mediums) are never given that choice to say NO “officially”. 
—-
New Data: A Half-Million People Said No to Online Tracking
Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:35:02 -0400 | elee@adage.com(Edmund Lee)

Do people really care if ads follow them around the web, taking notice of sites they’ve visited?

Well, at least 500,000 internet users — roughly the population of Atlanta — do. Altogether, half a million consumers have told advertisers to stop targeting them online, according Evidon, the leading technology provider to the ad industry’s privacy program known as About Ads.

In an effort to stem government scrutiny, the ad industry banded together late last year to create a privacy option for people who want to prevent marketers from tracking their habits online, also known as behavioral advertising, and the initial results show only a small percentage care enough to opt-out.

Eighty million internet users see the ad industry’s sanctioned privacy icon every day from Evidon alone, which serves 52% of the privacy market. So far only half a million within that group have chosen to prevent marketers and ad networks from serving ads based on their surfing habits.

At the same time, web ads have become effectively invisible, with only one in 10,000 people bothering to click through let alone take the time to notice the ad or the privacy icon that sits on the corner of those ads that may be targeted to specific users.

People who click on the privacy icon see a notice that explains the ad is being shown to them based on other sites they have visited. Someone who may have browsed through sites about shoes might see an ad from Zappos, for example. Each privacy notice shows a list of third-party companies that are tracking people through that ad, such as data companies and ad networks.

According to Evidon CEO Scott Meyer, ads that feature more than five or six accompanying vendors have higher opt-out rates. “It’s statistically significant,” he said, “and we’re not sure why that is right now.”

As to whether certain kinds of ads, such as automotive or financial services, have different opt-out rates, Mr. Meyer said that data is still being discussed and is not publicly available.

Evidon and the other two vendors, DoubleVerify and TrustE, have been sanctioned by the ad coalition to provide privacy options to digital marketers. Evidon has 52% of the market by a recent count of impressions served, with TrustE accounting for a third and DoubleVerify the rest. The data is based on a panel from data tracking firm Ghostery, which is owned by Evidon.

This doesn’t include the privacy efforts of major web publishers like Google, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft, which serve a blanket privacy option on all their advertising regardless of whether they are targeted to consumers, nor does it include opt-outs on the web-browser level on Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari and others.

 

 

Source: http://m.adage.com/article?articleSection=digital&articleSectionName=Digital&articleid=http%3A%2F%2Fadage.com%2Fdigital%2Farticle%3Farticle_id%3D229079


Why digital privacy and security are important for development | Tanya Notley | Global development | guardian.co.uk

Greenkim: Well, for one, in this part of the region the marketing folks do respect this sans the few ruthless ones… but the people themselves do not really care about it. Too much complacency contributes to the slack of data privacy/security for them, only for them to find out too late… We need better privacy laws out there, which somewhat exists but not reinforced. I’d know as I work on data a lot!

—–

Why digital privacy and security are important for development

New technologies provide the development sector with powerful tools to carry out its work more effectively, but they also introduce risks
martphones at the TTPCom stand, during the 3GSM World Congress 2005 in Cannes
Access to information technologies can play a critical role in helping people hold governments and development agencies accountable. Photograph: Lionel Cironneau/AP

Digital technologies, such as mobile phones and the internet, provide the development sector with new opportunities to plan and co-ordinate activities, expose hidden truths, and mobilise and engage new audiences. But it’s not all good news: new technologies introduce plenty of risks as well.

Recent posts on the Global development site reveal there remain mixed ideas about what we mean by “development”. Eric Gutierrez, Christian Aid’s senior adviser on governance, argued recently that corruption is bad for business and thus bad for the economy and, ultimately, bad for development as well. Earlier, Mark Tran argued in a provocative post that, given the examples of nations which have been lifted out of poverty by corrupt or repressive regimes, suggests that, although we might not like to admit it, good governance, government accountability and uncorrupt rule are not necessarily prerequisites to development.

If you believe an over-arching ambition of development should be to ensure the benefits of progress and plenty are shared fairly among citizens, then you will likely agree it’s important to have a government willing to create policies that attempt to remedy existing inequities. To do this in a democratic way, these policies, and the practices to implement them, need to be transparent to ensure people can assess how government and development money is being spent, where it is being distributed and if it achieves what was intended.

Access to information technologies – such as mobile phones, the internet, social networking sites and video – can play a critical role in helping people hold governments and development agencies accountable. When used to collect, monitor and assess information about needs, spending, activities and impacts, technologies support not only accountability but also – by allowing people to participate in their own governance – freedom of expression and civic participation.

The problem is that while new communication technologies have become cheaper and easier to use, they have also become more opaque. There are concerns about who owns data when it’s uploaded on or created using a commercial service; there is confusion about default privacysettings; and there is the issue of whether individuals are able to control traces of sensitive information they or others leave behind.

As a recent special edition of the Wall Street Journal – entitled What They Know – revealed, there are many “invisible” layers that track what we do online. One very popular website was found to install hundreds of tracking files on to the hardware of anyone visiting it and many of these files were shared across companies, without the knowledge of the website user.

The security and privacy of technologies, applications and online services have implications for us all, but is particularly pertinent for people who use technologies to uncover fraud, corruption and development malpractice. Not all governments and development actors are willing to accept their actions being questioned and wrongdoings exposed. The risks people face in doing this range from censorship of their voices and their content to physical threats.

Such risks are familiar to anti-corruption and transparency advocates around the world. In the Indian state of Gujarat, activists have been using the 2005 Right to Information Act to expose the state government’s corruption, mining scams and mismanagement of funds and resources. India Today magazine reports that last year saw 28 incidents of harassment and violence against citizens who lodged right to information applications, including 10 murders.

The UN Human Rights Council found that the “Tokyo Two”, who uncovered corruption in the Japanese whaling programme, were harassed and abused by authorities. Or consider the work of independent news publications such as Irrawaddy, which report on the corrupt practices and atrocities of Burma’s military-backed regime. The Committee to Protect Journalists recently reported that they are constantly fending off attacks that shut down their website and choke news distribution.

While there are many ways we can protect sensitive information, there is no magic bullet. Simple technical options available for digital security range from substituting https for http when accessing websites (this adds a layer of encryption), to using a programme that generates very hard-to-break passwords. More complex options include using encryption software and customising settings on tools and services. There are also old-fashioned techniques like using codes to communicate and store information.

The difficulty is developing a workable strategy for digital privacy and security. For those exposing rights abuses and corruption, this strategy needs to be tempered with a need for a public identity and privacy. Some information needs to be widely circulated; some needs to be fiercely protected.

The ways we can address these dual needs depends on a future still unwritten, in terms of how governments and commercial companies will be legally permitted to configure new technologies and use information about us. Much needs to be done if UN charters or government policies are to play a role in supporting citizens to effectively and safely use digital technologies to expose wrongdoings.

Meanwhile, we should all be thinking about what kind of digital future we want and what risks we might be taking or asking others to take when we promote digital technologies as tools for transparent, fair and just development.

• Dr Tanya Notley is a researcher at Tactical Technology Collective, which supports rights advocates to use information, communications and digital technologies to maximise the impact of their work and has produced a series of animations to raise awareness about digital privacy and security risks

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/04/digital-technology-development-tool