"Privacy" (capital 'P') is an ideal, very much like "Democracy" (capital 'D')

Let me begin by qualifying that I am simply a Facebook user. I have no vested interest in Facebook whatsoever.

This posting is in response to all the "Facebook is evil" rhetoric I've been reading lately with respect to their latest changes to their "privacy policies."

I don't think people have their facts straight regarding how Facebook handled the change to their new privacy policy with respect to existing users. When I logged in the other day I was presented with a screen that let me know there was a new privacy policy and that I needed to review my settings. While I was given the option to "open up" everything, all of the radio "buttons" defaulted to "keep my settings as they are/were." Needless to say, I like keeping my Facebook information limited, for the most part, to my friends, so I reviewed my settings and left everything as it was. I'm sure when someone creates a new account on Facebook the default privacy settings will be to open everything to the search engines (can you really blame them), but I'm sure even new users will be able to enforce the same restrictions I have on my account.

On the topic of privacy in general...

What really "grinds my gears" is why people get pissed off about privacy with respect to Facebook or any other on-line social network. I like using Facebook; it provides me a service that I have come to see as valuable. However, I know there are risks; not just with Facebook, but with almost any on-line social network. It seems to me that Facebook's only responsibility is to tell me what they are doing with my information and give me the capacity to "opt-out" if I so desire. Ultimately, the responsibility to protect my privacy is my responsibility. I learned, long ago, that one should not put anything on-line, in any form, that one would not want shared with the universe. Anyone who really thinks Facebook has become evil should not only stop posting to Facebook, they should close/cancel their account entirely. After all, voyeurism would be disingenuous. I would applaud anyone who, for the sake of principle, stops using Facebook entirely. Anyone who does so should let me know. My bet... This will be a VERY SMALL list.

Perhaps I am a fool, but I'm no more worried using Facebook that I am using GMail, my iPhone, or Microsoft Exchange.

For me, "Privacy" (capital 'P') is an ideal, very much like "Democracy" (capital 'D'). Conceptually, I think we all believe we would really like Privacy and Democracy. Unfortunately, neither is actually achievable in reality, and it is our individual responsibility to work to protect both; first for ourselves, then for everyone else.

The Perfect Digital Storm: Social Media + Internet + Mobility

On 17 Nov 2009 I have been asked to present to the Access Executive Network (www.AccessEN.org) at the Center Club in Irvine, CA.

Here is a link to the press release.

My topic for the event is...

"The Perfect Digital Storm: Social Media + Internet + Mobility"

I'm very excited to be sharing my ideas and leading what I hope to be a very interactive conversation.

It should be clear to everyone just how important social media and social networking have become. However, I've been wondering if its clear how much impact social media can have on day-to-day life as its reach is fueled by the explosion of mobility and mobile Internet access. It is my contention that we have barely scratched the surface.

When we look back on the second decade of the 21st century, I am certain we will all be blown away by the role enhanced social networking will have played in all our lives.

I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009 @ 6:00 PM at the Center Club in Irvine, CA.

If I were Twitter...

If I were Twitter, I'd be spending a considerable portion of that $100M I just raised focusing on how to leverage Twitter into becoming a destination, in addition to being a killer data stream.

At the moment Twitter is firmly in the middle of what I call the "phenomenon" phase of its existence. This is a great time for Twitter, but this time is fleeting. Providing/facilitating a real-time data stream is a great resource, however, this data stream is not in unto itself particularly useful (there is just too much data). If Twitter keeps going down this "we are only a data stream" path they are going to quickly find themselves marginalized by players like Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc. In addition, Twitter will quickly realize, if they have not already, that providing a utility is a thankless chore. The people that will make the real money will be those that are able to "functionalize" the data. Companies like TweetDeck, SocialApproach, Ad.ly, etc. (a.k.a. the Twitter ecosystem) that are able to channel/segment the Twitter "fire hose" into a "garden hose" from which individuals can actually receive tangible value will certainly be the winners.

I would contend that Twitter's greatest asset, at the moment, is not the data itself, but the Twitter brand. Twitter needs to find their "purple cow" and capitalize on it... now!

Back to my opening thesis...

For Twitter to succeed for the long-term they need to figure out a way to make people and businesses want to put their Twitter URL on their television commercials and marketing collateral. For example, during a recent baseball game (go Red Sox) there was a Honda commercial. At the end of the commercial Honda did not provide a URL to www.honda.com, they provided a URL to facebook.com/honda. Sure, Honda is proud to say "follow us on Twitter," but the act of following is only really beneficial to Honda, not Twitter.

If Twitter does not capitalize on their brand by adding tangible "social" components to their feature set it is just a matter of time (months not years) until they are consumed by one of the big boys for far less than they could have been had they been able to get outside of their comfort zone.

Bottom line... Twitter was revolutionary/innovative in 2007. Today (Q4/2009), Twitter needs to show us they are not simply a spectacularly successful "one-hit-wonder."

Going Green: How Environmentally Friendly is your Company’s Anti-Spam Solution?

I originally posted the following at CIO.com (http://tiny.cc/Pvz1g)

Last week McAfee, in conjunction with ICF International, published The Carbon Footprint of E-mail Spam Report, a report that details the “carbon footprint” of sending, receiving, and viewing spam. A novel new concept – the environmental impact of spam?

One of the most significant findings of the report was that nearly 80% of the energy consumed by spam comes “from end-users deleting spam and searching for legitimate e-mail (false positives).” The act of sending a spam message, consumes less than 1% of the GHG emissions associated with any given spam message – and the real “damage” so to speak is done once the spam message hits a user’s inbox (27% of GHG emissions are a result of false positives and 52% of emissions are a result of viewing spam).

I have to beg the question here, if the “damage” being caused is more or less in our hands (i.e. once the spam message reaches our inbox), is there such a thing as a “green” anti-spam solution we can implement to address the problem? Logic would say yes – anti-spam solutions that are able to eliminate false positives, and minimize the amount of spam end-users receive and view, are by course of reason and logic “green” solutions.

Here, lets explore the three criteria organizations can use to determine how “green” their anti-spam solution is: number of false-positives, spam messages viewed, and methodology used to stop spam.

False Positives
Twenty-seven percent of GHG emissions resulting from a typical spam message are the result of false positives. Anti-spam solutions that may block a high percentage of spam (98 or even 99%), but result in a high number of false positives, are usually more trouble than they are worth. While your end-users may not have spam in their inbox, the time spent searching for legitimate messages in a junk folder is costly in terms of lost productivity and environmental impact.

False positives are typically a problem that is inherently associated with filter-based anti-spam solutions – solutions that are built to avoid false-positives, and don’t rely on a “spam-filter” to scan the content of a message are more effective in addressing this “environmental” concern and time eater.

Spam Viewed
A staggering fifty-two percent of GHG emissions resulting from any given spam message are a result of viewing that piece of spam. This piece of criteria couldn’t be any simpler: the higher the spam stop-rate (i.e. 95, 96, 97 %) of your solution, the more environmental friendly it is. If your solution doesn’t allow spam messages to reach end-user’s inboxes, then your users aren’t spending time viewing or deleting these messages, and ultimately the GHG emissions associated with any one of these messages is eliminated.

Or, even better, select a solution that won’t allow spam through, period. Here, I’m sure to hear a resounding… “easier said than done!” However this point comes back to the methodology behind your solution and how it addresses the problem of spam.

Let’s discuss…

Solution Methodology
Sixteen percent of GHG emissions associated with a spam message can be traced back to the spam filter that worked to stop that spam message. Needless to say, without any anti-spam filter in place, emissions would increase dramatically in other areas (such as spam viewing), and any solution is better than none. However, some are better than others, and today organizations have a plethora of choices when it comes to selecting an anti-spam solution – and no longer need to rely on filter-based solutions to solve their spam problem.

Increasingly, organizations are moving away from “filter-based” solutions, to solutions that focus on the trustworthiness of the sender, not the content of the message. Although spam filters have gotten “better,” they still create an arms race - spammers are continually looking for new and innovative techniques to break or circumvent the filters and filtering companies are continually creating updates to combat these new attacks. This ping pong effect results in more spam, more management, and a problem that isn’t solved.

Sendio (for the enterprise), Earthlink, Spam Arrest, and Boxbe (for individuals) are all companies that have rolled out solutions that adopt an “Opt-in Model” to stop spam. Similar to many popular social networking sites, (such as Facebook and LinkedIn) these solutions utilize something similar to the “friend request,” allowing users to build their own network of trusted contacts instead of relying on a filter to determine what is and isn’t spam. By adopting an approach that puts users in control, organizations can truly address their spam problem – and totally eliminate false positives as well as spam viewed. To eliminate the time and carbon emissions associated with these two components eliminates nearly 80% of the carbon emissions associated with spam!

Ultimately, how environmentally friendly your anti-spam solution is, is directly correlated to how effective that solution is – and implementing anti-spam solutions that are highly effective, will be both good for business and for the environment.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/sendio & http://twitter.com/talgolan

E-mail is the original "social network"

FaceBook -  LinkedIn - MySpace - Plaxo - Twitter. What do these have in common aside from the fact they are all wildly successful? Simple... Each of these are important players in the latest 21st century craze, forever to be known as "social networking." I am a huge fan of FaceBook. I don't know about you, but I love getting "FaceBooked" by random friends, family members,  and/or business associates from my past. Once or twice per week I get one of those "Random Person has requested to add you as a friend on FaceBook" e-mails.

I'm in the business of making e-mail a safe and more productive tool. Part of my job is to consider questions like "Why is FaceBook so great and why do so many people use it?" After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that FaceBook has succeeded in providing more than simply a nice social networking environment. Thanks to FaceBook's "opt-in by request only" nature, people are able to connect and communicate one-to-one (and in some cases one-to-many) with only those people they have authorized. I know many people who have stopped using traditional free e-mail services like Gmail and Yahoo, and instead use FaceBook to communicate with friends and colleagues. I ask these people why they have abandoned e-mail and in all cases the answer has been the same. "FaceBook is easy to use, is safe from threats, and is spam free."

I do not know anyone that works for FaceBook. However, if I did, I would certainly compliment them on creating the secure communications channel that e-mail could have been.

This brings me to the explanation of the title of this posting...

In my opinion, e-mail is the original "social networking" tool. To quote George Lucas, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." in a pre-FaceBook, pre-LinkedIn world; there was e-mail. Before the "bad guys" and "marketing guys" messed up e-mail, it was a great tool for managing your social network of friends and business associates. Unfortunately for e-mail, there is no built-in concept of "opt-in by request only" functionality. In fact, with e-mail, there is virtually no built-in security whatsoever.

As the original "killer app," for e-mail to maintain its undisputed role as the most important communications medium since the telephone, it seems clear to me that e-mail needs to be "upgraded" at least to a security level equal to that of other major social networking tools.