Google deleting/suspending users for using handles

Originally posted 07/26/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Google+ (g+)has gotten off to a good start. Unfortunately it's hit a rocky spot that could, if not handled properly, destroy the momentum it's enjoyed so far. Rafal Los (aka Wh1t3Rabbit) reports that the hacker community is in an uproar. Apparently Google has been disabling the accounts of people who are using handles instead of their real names. Some people have lost everything they had in Google. This is a problem because Google's terms of service apparently don't say you have to use your real name, but to use the name your friends know you buy. I'm not a hacker but, like Rafal Los, I am acquainted with people who do not use their real names. I've never known their real names, and if they contacted me using their real names I might ignore it because I wouldn't know who it was. The other side of the problem is, Google is biting the hands of the early adopters. As I said a few days ago, the majority of Google+ early adopters are male, and as far as I can tell, in the technology sector. A large number of those use handles, and don't appreciate being told they have to use their real names. People who have been using Gmail since it's inception also don't appreciate losing all their archived emails and other data. How many people will turn away from g+ rather than wrestle with Google over usernames?

But it may not be as simple as that. According to Peter Smith at ITWorld there appear to be two types of account issues: Accounts being suspended for naming violations, and accounts being suspended for violations of the terms of service. Naming convention violatiosn are relatively minor. You can still get your Gmail and you just have to prove that poeple normally know you by your username, either through links or ID's. But the TOS violations are worse. You are not given a clear description of the violation, and you lose access to your entire Google account.

Another article on itworld.com, this one by Juan Carlos Perez, talks about the different groups being affected by the account deletions, which include people who have unusual names and people who don't want to use their real names for privacy reasons. As quoted in the article, Google's response seems to be:

Asked for comment, a Google spokeswoman said via e-mail that Google Profiles are designed to be public Web pages whose purpose is to "help connect and find real people in the real world." "By providing your common name, you will be assisting all people you know -- friends, family members, classmates, co-workers, and other acquaintances -- in finding and creating a connection with the right person online," she wrote.

Google claims to want to make it easier to connect to people we know. Ironically, they are undermining one of the goals they had when they put Google+ into private Beta. The goal for us to connect to each other the way we do in real life. In real life online (and sometimes off) people use handles, nicknames, pseudonyms, whatever you want to call them. If Google really wants people to be connecting on Google+ the way they do in real life, and they aren't concerned with things like being able to accurately identify people, then Google is being disengenious. In fact, if someone is using a handle and has followers, especially if they have dozens or more, then their username and profile are helping to, "connect and find real people in the real world." There is no problem, and Google has no reason to suspend accounts because the creator used a handle.

Google+ has a small hiccup

Originally posted 07/11/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Ricky at digitizor.com reports that Google+ ran out of disk space on a notifications server this weekend. It was a small glitch in a service that's still in limited field test, so it's not a big deal. But it should be a wake up call for Google, who admit that they should have foreseen the rapid expansion in notifications. 

This might have been a nightmare for Google, if Google+ were a widely available public product. The lack of server space caused notifications to be sent repeatedly for about 80 minutes, which was inconvenient for some people. But Google+ isn't finished and isn't in wide use yet. All problems with the service have been fixed rapidly and without attempt to gloss over them, so Google is actually looking good, and the reviews for Google+ keep getting better. This 'field test' is giving Google invaluable data on usage which will help prevent large scale versions of the glitch this past weekend. 

Google tries privacy friendlier attack on Facebook

Originally posted 006/29/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Yesterday on the Official Google Blog a new social networking experience was announced. Dubbed Google+ it's similar to Facebook and Myspace in some ways, but if it works as advertised, it will give more control over privacy. You will be able to segment your friends the way you do in real life in 'circles' that won't have any connections you don't want them to have. At this point Google+ is invite only, so it's too early to tell, but it looks like it has the potential to be a winner.

Here are links to a more indepth stories by people who have already been invited into Google+:

The Epicenter Blog at Wired.com

News & Opinion at PCMag.com

The New York Times Inside Technology

Should google release a website vulnerability scanner?

Originally posted 006/23/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Google announced it's experimental Chrome extension, DOM Snitch, to expose vulnerabilities on websites. It's intended for site developers to test their sites from the browser end. As Radoslav Vasilev notes in the blog, most site testing tools focus on the server side of testing. DOM Snitch let's you see what's going on from the browser side.

I like this. I think it'll be pretty cool to go to websites and find out what kinds of vulnerabilties they have. Then again, I might find out things about my bank that would scare the bejesus out of me.

Google reveals too much again

Originally posted 06/20/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Declan Mcullagh of the Privacy Inc blog at cnet.com reports that Google and Shyhook Wireless are both reporting the location of Wifi hotspots - which can include your cell phone or laptop. Other companies, including Apple and Microsoft, gather that information, but don't make it public:

Only Google and Skyhook Wireless, however, make their location databases linking hardware IDs to street addresses publicly available on the Internet, which raises novel privacy concerns when the IDs they're tracking are mobile. If someone knows your hardware ID, he may be able to find a physical address that the companies associate with you--even if you never intended it to become public.

Google isn't saying whether they are gathering MAC addresses on devices that aren't acting as hotspots. If they are, it will be another privacy snafu for Google. After the pounding from Google Streetview cars gathering data from unsecured wifi points, you would think extra effort would have been made to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. You would be wrong. There is legitimate reason to be gathering the data - it helps with GPS services - but there is no reason for it to be public on the web.

Come on Google, you're smarter than that.

Congress says, "protect customers", Justice Department says "spy on them."

Originally posted 05/11/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Today Apple and Google execs appeared before congress to answer questions about the way their operating systems gather user data. Darrell Etherington of the Gigaom column at Businessweek reports that Senator Al Franken assured everyone that the purpose of the hearing was not to bring an end to location services, but to move forward while protecting customers.

While Senator Franken was working to protect consumers from overreaching data collection by cell phone makers, the Justice Department was arguing for laws requiring cell phone providers to collect more data on their customers. Declan Mcullagh reported in his Privacy Inc. blog that Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division testified on the need for cell phones to collect and retain data to make it easier for law enforcement to gather evidence:

"Many wireless providers do not retain records that would enable law enforcement to identify a suspect's smartphone based on the IP addresses collected by Web sites that the suspect visited," he added.

Really? They won't be able to identify a persons smart phone if they can't use the IP address assigned to it? I know some criminals will avoid putting any identifying information on the phone if they can, but really. The only way to identify a smart phone belongs to someone is by knowing it's IP and the web sites it visited. It makes you wonder how they were ever abe to solve crimes back in the dark ages when there were no smart phones with IP addresses and web sites to record them.

This is a typical overreach. The idea that government can require gathering data on everyone because there are a few instances the data may help in a criminal case goes against the spirit of the 4th Amendment and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Why is a cell phone any different than the information in my home? They can't go into everyone's home and gather data to make it easier to solve criminal cases. Why should they be allowed to go into my phone? And why should they be able to gather data, or have someone else gather data from my phone without any evidence I've committed a crime? They shouldn't. That's what the Bill of Rights was written to protect us from.

Google forgets "Do No Evil" slogan?

Originally published 2/23/11 on lubbockonline.com/glasshouses

A week or so ago I noticed a "Doodle-4-Google" contest asking for artwork from kids. I intended to go back later because I thought my kids might be interested, but got busy and forgot. Then today I see an article by Bob Bowden in the Huffington Post, "Why Has Google Been Collecting Kids' Social Security Numbers Under the Guise of an Art Contest?" It turns out that Google has been asking parents for information that could be used to guess their children's Social Security numbers.

Google has changed the entry form so that it just asks for the childs school and parents address. It originally asked for the childs city of birth and date of birth as well as the last four digits of their SS#. It's not widely known, but if you know the city of birth, date of birth, and last four of the SS# it is possible to guess with very high probability the first five digits of the SS#.

Why was Google asking for this information? It was hardly necessary to ask for any Social Security information for a children's art contest. When a letter was sent to Google asking about the legality of asking for children's SS#'s the entry form was rapidly changed. It's possible that Google simply hadn't thought about the legality of what they were doing, but I don't really believe that. If Google guessed the children's SS#'s and sold them they would make millions. Having a person's SS# gives you unprecedented access to their lives.

Bob noted that the contests privacy policy did nothing to protect privacy, saying:

 

At least the contest "privacy notice" is clear enough: "participation constitutes consent to the storage, use and disclosure of the Entrant's entry details...." It should really be called the "privacy waiver."

 

It has since been changed:

 

Privacy Notice. By participating in this Contest, you agree that Google can collect your personal information, and that if Google cannot collect the required data, you may not be eligible to participate in the Contest. Any personal information collected during the course of the Contest by Google will only be used for administering this Contest and for other purposes as outlined in these Rules, and will be subject to the practices described in the Google Privacy Policy located at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy.html. You will have the right to access, review, rectify or cancel any personal data held by Google by writing to Google (Attention: Privacy Matters) at the Google address listed in Section 2.

 

When Google realized what it had done (or that it had been caught) it quickly fixed the problems. But this just underscores the fact that you should never fill out anything online (or anywhere) without reading the fine print and making sure you understand it. Especially if you are doing it for children.

Google offers all users 2 step login

Google announced yesterday that it will be offering free two step logins free to any user that wants it. What Google is calling two step the security industry calls two factor. There are three factors that can be used to identify a person:

• Something the user knows: Birthday, birthplace, 5th President of the U.S., pass code
• Something the user has: Key, Swipe card, RFID chip
• Something the user is: Fingerprint, Retina print, DNA

What Google is offering is the option to get a second factor - something you have - to the existing single factor username and password - something you know. When you sign up for the two step authentication you authorize Google to send a passcode to your cell phone. When you enter your username and password a second page will require you to enter the verification code sent to your cell phone by Google.

This is a good thing. It makes it much more difficult to hack into Google accounts. I checked my account a few times yesterday. There was a notice that two step authentication would be coming to it soon. I'm looking forward to it.

Google closes the door on an open standard?

Is it licensing?

Peter Bright at Ars Technica reports that Google is dropping H.264 video support from it's Chrome browser. You might not think that would be a big deal. It was announced Firefox wouldn't support H.264 and hardly anybody blinked. But Firefox isn't Google.

Peter points out that Googles stated reason - to support open formats - doesn't hold water. H.264 is an open standard. What it isn't is a free standard - the licensing is capped at $6.5 million a year. But Google has a video codec of it's own, WebM. It may not fulfill the traditional definition of an open standard, but it's free. And cost effects even as rich a company as Google - but maybe not quite in the way Peter believes.

Or Infrastructure?

Jason Perlow, a ZDNet contributor, believes there is another reason Google wants to drop H.264. The cost of using H.264 is negligible for Google. But Google has properties that dwarf the cost of H.264 licensing. Chief among them would be YouTube. H.264 is widely supported, but Google's removed of H.264 support has raised the concern that H.264 support may be dropped from YouTube next.

According to Jason the real cost of supporting H.264 is in the infrastructure required to support it. Servers, storage space, and the bandwidth required to support multiple video formats are not cheap. Being able to get rid of one could put a significant dent in those costs. Getting rid of one that also has 6.5 million in licensing puts an even larger dent.

That's understandable, but it could effectively scuttle the efforts to simplify video on the web. HTML5 has a new tag, the VIDEO tag, that is supposed to work like the IMG tag - the type of image doesn't matter, and neither would the type of video. But it won't work if the browser won't support the video format. It may not work if the largest distributor of streaming video on the web doesn't support the standard.

It's amazing that a company that claims to promote open standards could be responsible for scuttling one online.

Is Apple's Mac App store a game changer?

The Mac App Store is coming in roughly 90 days. Steve is excited, and so are quite a few other people. According to two articles with brief developer interviews on Cult of Mac Most developers are looking forward to it. (1, 2) They also aren't sure exactly how it's going to work into their business strategies, yet, but they're excited about figuring it out.

What does an App store on Mac mean to the rest of us, though? It's hard to say right now, but the idea of high quality software for $0 and up is enticing. The software in the iPhone/iPad app store is generally of high quality. Apple's App review policy ensures that it stays that way.

Will the App store put an end to traditional software distribution? I doubt it. Not in the near future anyway. Apple wants 30% of the apps sale price, which won't fly with companies like Adobe or Microsoft. Not to mention that internet speeds are still slow enough in many places that downloading the installer for something like the Adobe Creative Suite - especially the Master Collection - would take too long for most people. But Adobe and Microsoft may find themselves left in the cold if they continue to push bloated programs that no one can truly master because no one uses most of the 'features' they have. Why spend $150 for a program that does more than you'll ever need if you can spend $20 and get a compatible program that will do everything you do need?

Another good thing for consumers is that Apple's approval process, while flawed, does create a minimum quality that developers won't be allowed to fall below. It will put a dent in shareware on the Mac, if not kill it. Why hunt for shareware of questionable quality when you can go to the app store and download an app you know will at least do what it says, and probably cheaper than a shareware program.

What about competitors? Will Microsoft create an App store for desktop Windows? For all versions? What about Google and the Chrome OS? If they do, will either have an approval process similar to Apple's? I can already answer that last question. They won't. Google's Android has an app store, but there is no review process that I'm aware of. Microsoft won't because it's not in the companies DNA. Steve Jobs has always been a micromanager, at least of projects he's really interested in. He has always wanted to control as much about the Mac's user experience as he can. The App store is one more step to total control.

If successful the Mac App store will have a profound change on software delivery on the Mac, and quickly. It's already having an effect. The effect it will have on other OS's is harder to predict, but unless it totally flops, it will have an effect. If it is as popular as the iPhone app store, Microsoft will have an App store for Windows by Summer 2011 at the very latest. They're probably already working on one. So the Mac App store has kept a few Microsoft software engineers employed for a few more months even if it flops.

(1) http://www.cultofmac.com/mac-app-store-what-do-developers-think/64859

(2) http://www.cultofmac.com/mac-app-store-more-developer-reaction/65036.

Google Apps now more secure than many banks

Who knew that Google would make it's free app offerings more secure than many banks make account access? Mark Hachman at PCMag.com reports that Google Apps Taps Phone for Two-Layer Security.

It's pretty cool. It's only available right now for enterprise customers right now, but it is going to be available soon for everyone who uses Google Apps and has a cell phone via sms texting. There are apps for Android and Blackberry phones, with an iPhone app in the works. This is a good thing. It makes it much more difficult to hack into someone's Google Apps and gives yet another multi-factor authentication option.

After reading the PCMag story, I checked the "Krebs on Security" blog to see if he had anything to say about the new Google Apps feature. He blogged about it earlier this week. In Google Adds 2-Factor Security to Gmail, Apps he notes that the free two factor authentication offered by Google is better than that offered by many banks. The lousy online security offered by many banks is a topic Brian Krebs talks about a lot, and one I talked about in regard to Plains Capital Bank suing their customer last year. Brian saw a bonus in Google's new feature that didn't occur to me, although it seems an obvious way to pay for people making free use of it. Offer the service to banks. Google can probably offer the service at a nice profit for Google and still be far cheaper than solutions that require banks to buy hardware. The hardware will be provided by the customers. It's a win for everyone.

Don't eat Eric Schmidt's ice cream

Google was called to task recently by insidegoogle.com for privacy statements of CEO Eric Schmidt. It took the form of a 15 second video played on the jumbotron in Times square. You can see it here. But that wasn't enough, they put up a longer version with a voice track on their website and on Youtube here.

The shorter video has the creepier appearance, relying on "Schmidt's" facial expression to convey the wickedness of Google's data gathering, but the longer version gives examples of what Google might know about you. Unfortunately, they chose two examples that fall right in line with the paraphrased Eric Schmidt quote they use, "If there's anything you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." There are plenty of things that you might not want people to know, but that are completely legitimate. I guess they don't have enough of a 'creepy factor' for an ad like this, though. Google's response to the videos was very sedate, or at least I didn't see loud objections or denials. They made changes to clarify their privacy policy and even, after initial refusal, allowed insidegoogle.com to purchase advertising on Google for the purpose of criticizing Google.

Google, possibly more than any other company - even Facebook - knows us better than we know ourselves. They talk about stored data being anonymized, but for it to be useful in the ways Google uses it there has to be a way to connect it to us. That's how personalized searches, search term suggestions and the other little perks we take for granted now that didn't exist just a few years ago work. If Google can connect it to us, it's possible that someone else might obtain it and make the same connection.

So is Eric Schmidt one of several 'dark lords' of internet data gathering? Or is he a messiah, using the personal data we gift him with to improve our internet experience and grant us greater and more personal online lives? Or is he a well meaning businessman who really doesn't understand the implications of what he is doing? I doubt that any of those are completely true. But it is true that Google's business could not exist as it does if it didn't have access to as much information as it can gather from us. So I imagine that there is a little of the sinner and the saint in Mr. Schmidt's motives, and perhaps a little of the naive visionary as well. But regardless of his motivations, it's our job to make sure that Google and companies like it only gather information we want gathered. To do that we have to know what information they are gathering, why, and what is being done with it, and they should be willing to tell us.

Google CEO: People want Google to tell them what to do

Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO sat down with a bunch of Wall Street Journal Editors recently. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. took the interview and turned it into an article, "Google and the Search for the Future." After reading the article I wish I could afford Google stock. Mr. Schmidt appears to have far reaching vision, and enough of it to keep Google at the forefront of our online life for a good while. But at the same time, I cringe to think of what his vision means for our privacy.

Why does it make me cringe? Two quotes from the article, one a direct quote of Mr. Schmidt, seem to put Google on the path to becoming Big Brother, although a much kinder, gentler big brother than imagined by George Orwell:

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are."

We all know that Google knows a great deal about us. And I'm pretty sure that it has better than a rough idea who a lot of people's friends are. What's a little scary is the CEO of Google thinks that most of us want Google to tell us what to do. What's scarier is that he my be right.

 

George Orwell 1984 Signet Classic

Google accidentally spys on open WiFi

Ben Rooney of cnnmoney.com reports that the Google has admitted that it's Streetview cars have been collecting data from open WiFi hotspots. Google first admitted to collecting the publicly broadcast information of open hotspots, things like the network names and router numbers, on April 27th. But after being asked for more information, Google says that they discovered more data was being collected - private data in the packets being transmitted across the network. Supposedly the code that gathered data packets was accidentally entered into software used to gather public information on WiFi.

The software changes channels five times a second, so only bits and pieces of data would be gathered. Encrypted data, like the communications between you and your bank account, cannot be read, so it won't have been compromised by Google's illicit scans.

Google is, of course saying that it was an accident. In response they have stopped all scanning of open WiFi by their streetview cars until they can repair and replace the faulty software. They have arranged for a third party to review the software and the data collected from public WiFi networks.

This is a major blunder by Google. Whether it was a case of pushing the envelope to see what the reaction would be or an honest mistake, it's going to hurt Google's reputation. This one I tend to believe was an accident. In many nations it is illegal to tamper with electronic communications. Google may want to gather and use information, but breaking the law to do it isn't good business.

Could Buzz become Facebook for education?

In his blog entry on ZDNet, "A social networking call to arms" Christopher Dawson looked at Google as the potential social networking provider for education and business. He makes some good points. In the past Google has been considered a nemesis of personal privacy for their retention of user search and email data long after the fact. But they have responded to their users concerns by limiting the time data is kept, and when they made the major blunder at the introduction of Buzz were quick to fix the problem. Facebook, on the other hand, is continually expanding what user information is considered public without consulting users or seeming to care about their wishes. Schools have to keep certain data private, and Facebook does not allow that.

There was a time when Facebook might have been useful as a tool for teachers. That time is long past. But a social network run by Google could work. Google does not make change their privacy policy every six months (or less) in an effort to make more of the user data public. And Google has experience providing secure services in the cloud to businesses already. They already have most of the ingredients of a successful social media site if they can find a way to tie them all together. Google Search, Google Reader, Youtube, Blogger and Google's handling of privacy issues are some pieces of the puzzle. All Google needs is a way to package them together that satisfies the privacy and security needs of educational institutions while providing the social experience people want.

Message to Google: Respect our citizens privacy

In a story published in the Avalanche-Journal, Barbara Ortutay, AP technology writer reports that 10 nations have written a joint letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt expressing their concern over the way Google Buzz and Google Streetview handle privacy.

It's good to see that the privacy of citizens is important to their governments. It's sad that the US wasn't represented, but we don't have a privacy commissioner, and anyone who's been paying even mediocre attention to the news for the last 5 years should know that US government isn't exactly worried about citizens privacy.

The letter pulled no punches, saying in part:

"However, we are increasingly concerned that, too often, the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications.  We were disturbed by your recent rollout of the Google Buzz social networking application, which betrayed a disappointing disregard for fundamental privacy norms and laws.  Moreover, this was not the first time you have failed to take adequate account of privacy considerations when launching new services."

The other service being referred to was, of course, Google Streetview. Google streetview has been plagued with privacy issues such as pictures of the interior of houses, backyards behind privacy fences, and unobscured pictures of peoples faces without permission.

The commissioners expressed concern that Google was making it a standard business practice to roll out new services without adequate planning and privacy protections:

"It is unacceptable to roll out a product that unilaterally renders personal information public, with the intention of repairing problems later as they arise. Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world."

I only wish we could convince the US government of the importance of the citizens right to privacy. If we all contact our congressman and tell them, maybe we can.

The text of the letter is here.

Surviellance law needs updating

Scott M. Fulton, III, managing editor of betanews.com, wrote an in-depth article on technewsworld.com about the need to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), an ancient (in technology terms) law that sought to update the code covering telephone communications so that it also covered computer communications. But it was written in 1986, almost a quarter of a century ago. Computer communications now are radically different than they were then. In 1986 most computer communications were between universities, government agencies and government contractors. Today the communication between those three segments is a fraction of the communications between private companies and citizens.

The Digital Due Process (DDP) group, led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, has defined some principles for Congress to take into consideration when they look at updating the ECPA. The goal is to get internet communications the same protection given to wiretapped telecommunications. This isn't the first time that the DDP has tried to influence policy, but this time they've enlisted two of the more visible company in recent privacy discussion, Microsoft and Google. Their involvement should put some weight behind the DDP's suggested principles.

Internet communications are in dire need of legislative protection. Despite recent court rulings, just how protected online communications such as email are is uncertain. And with more of individuals critical data being stored online or in third party cloud services, the current laws and precedents make the Fourth Amendment moot. By use of the Third Party Doctrine law enforcement can deny Fourth Amendment protections to anything you store online. That includes email, financial data (if you access your bank account online...) and even your dropbox account.

Check out Mr. Fulton's article to learn a lot more about this issue. I've only touched the surface of what he covers. Before I finish, I want to include one quote to emphasize how important it is that current laws be updated, and the standard of how much privacy protection is afforded online data be updated:

"The Supreme Court has said that you can issue a subpoena -- not because you believe the law is being violated, but merely to assure yourself that the law is not being violated." Jim Dempsey, CDT Vice President for Public Policy

I don't know about you, but to me that sounds a lot like assuming guilt without evidence. Kind of flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't it?

Lot-o-links: Articles on Facebook, Google, Supreme Court and more

From Businessweek:  New EU Privacy Laws Could Hit Facebook - Mark Zuckerbergs mouth paints a target on Facebook

Exchangemag.com: Google Social Search Hits Privacy Snag on Facebook - Maybe Facebooks privacy settings are better than we thought.

Mediapost.com: Google Scores Partial Victory In Street View Lawsuit - Google streetview photographing view of house ok. Entering private drive to do it, not so much.

U.S. News: Should Supreme Court Uphold the Quon Case on Worker Privacy? Should workers expect email and other electronic communication on company equipment be private? Take the poll.

PCWorld.com: EFF:Browsers Can Leave a Unique Trail on the Web - Find out how much information your browser gives without even being asked. With suggestions on how to obscure your trail.

RDMag.com: How Can Policymakers Promote Innovation and Strengthen Privacy? - Policy always lags behind technology, trick is protecting privacy without stifling innovation.

Hope you find the reading interesting.

How's your Online Rep?

I was going through my alerts today, and a Smart Planet blog caught my eye. Titled, "How to build and manage an online reputation," it's a good primer, and has some good links at the end of the article. We'll go over some of what they say, and some of what some other people say, but I recommend checking out all of the sites linked today. They all have a lot more to say than I can repeat here.

According to the article at Smart Planet, the first thing you need to do is find out what's out there about you. Just a few years ago the only people who really had to worry about their online rep were people who'd reached a certain status level in certain technical fields. Today almost any job you go to will check out your Facebook page and/or hit the search engines.

Have you googled your own name lately?

Some privacy advocates say googling yourself is a bad idea. Frankly, you can't afford not to google yourself - and Yahoo and Bing yourself (that last one just doesn't sound right, does it?).  What you see is what potential employers are going to see, and each search engine give slightly different results.

Another blog entry at onlinereputationedge.com brings up a good, but seldom talked about point - what you say about other people online usually says a whole lot more about you than about the person you're talking about. So be careful what you say. And remember, once you put something online, it will never be gone, so the bad impression you create today could come back to haunt you thirty years from now.

Onlinerepmanagement.com uses Kanye West to teach us that even the biggest blunders - or group of blunders - can be mitigated by an active online presence. Because he is very active online you won't see much negative about him when you search for his name, even after 2009's gaffs. It's amazing what an active online presence can take care of.

That's it for now. Stay safe and work on that online rep.

Google CEO scoffs at privacy

Last week, just days after announcing Google Public DNS and raising the question of how much do we really want Google to know about our web activity, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave us the answer in an interview on CNBC. The answer is, as little as possible. When the CEO of Google basically says, "you have no privacy, get over it" it's time to let him know that it does matter. I'm not too impressed by the way he used the Patriot Act to justify it, either.

Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's chief of community development feels the same way. In his blog he tells people to add Bing to Firefox. You know if Mozilla, one of the opponents Microsoft couldn't quite kill, is suggesting a Microsoft product they have serious concerns. The add-on he links to is here. He also says that the Bing privacy policy is better than Googles, but I don't really see a whole lot of difference on a quick read of both.

I'm sure I'll keep using Google search, if only because I use multiple search engines already. The webs a big place, and most search engines hit spots that others don't - even if it only shows up 4 or 5 pages down - yes, I often go that far down in search results.

The truth is, as much as I don't like Mr. Schmidt's attitude toward privacy, until someone comes up with a new way to do search that out-googles Google, you can't afford to ignore it. But you can let them know what you think about it and hurt they're bottom line by using other search engines more.