Will Facebook make fair trial impossible?

Over the past fifty years there has been an ever growing problem in taking people accused of high profile crimes to trial. How do you insure an unbiased jury when the pool has been tainted by repeated reports of facts, speculation and fiction on the case? With the popularity of the internet and the instant reporting of Twitter and Facebook this problem has become even more severe.

Which bring us to the case of a 16 year old alleged victim of gang-rape in Pitt Meadow, British Columbia. The story was reported on CTV News British Columbia by Julia Foy. A group of males allegedly raped her at a rave. The stories are fairly predictable: The men say she consented, the girl and the police say she didn't. Both sides agree that she had taken drugs that night.

A Facebook page, "Support-for-16yr-old-victim-in-Pitt-Meadows" was put up in defense of the girl, and before long a second page, "Reasonable Doubt in Pitt Meadows, was formed to support the alleged rapists.

Not surprisingly, the group supporting the girl has many more friends. Even if you are willing to be open minded and admit that the men may be telling the truth, few people will want to come out and say publicly that none of us know enough to say who's story is true. Especially since the men are guilty of statutory rape, regardless.

I realize that I am, in a sense, perpetuating the problem I am complaining about. I'm probably not going to have much affect on the jury pool, even if they change venue, but as time passes and ever more people are connected the viral nature of the internet will make it harder and harder to find unbiased jurors. As I write this there are 9200 followers of the "Support" pages and a mere 92 followers of the "Reasonable Doubt" pages. Pitt Meadow has a population of about 17,500. I know that not all of the followers are from Pitt Meadow, but the odds are that most are from within the coverage area of local news, which means there probably 9200 potential jurors who have already made up there minds about the case.

This is not one of the things I think about when I talk about the importance of privacy, and the problems of Facebook. But it is a problem. And it is important. Accused criminals have a right to privacy that must be maintained until the trial is over for a fair trial to be possible. To be fair, it's not so much a Facebook problem as it is a human problem, and it would exist whether Facebook allows such groups or closes them down as soon as it hears about them. Add Twitter and the myriad other social networking sites, and we are fast approaching a time when unbiased juries are hard to find. So, admitting that, how can we protect the right of the accused to a fair trial with an impartial jury in an age of instant communication?

Social Networks enhance political protesting in Middle East

In an opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy at the Washington Post tells us that free speech is getting a boost in the Middle East, thanks to social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. This is the result of an event I blogged about a little over a month ago, the death of Khaled Said.
Khaled Said's alleged murder by two Egyptian police officers spread quickly on Facebook and Twitter. Shortly after that Facebook groups were started in Khaleds name, and protests were organized.
Ms. Eltahawy discusses the events since his death, including the trial of two of the officers involved in the beating. The trial isn't over, but the fact that there was a trial says a lot.
The beauty and power of the internet is wrapped up in the fact that no one really controls it. As governments and industries try to control what can be transmitted and who can transmit it the freedom that many of  us take for granted is threatened. It may not seem like a big deal to those of us in countries who enjoy constitutional protections, but the activists in countries that don't enjoy those protections can tell you that it is a very big deal, indeed.

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.

Facebook users risk blackmail

Everyone who follows this blog knows that I do not like the way Facebook pretends to protect our privacy. But my statements pale in comparison to what Jennifer Stoddart, Canada's Privacy Czar, has to say. In a story in the Globe and Mail she says:

“I’m very concerned about these changes. More than half a million developers will have access to this data. The information will be stored indefinitely and it opens the possibility that a lot of people can be blackmailed from all corners of the world.”

That's a pretty strong assertion. I'm not sure how real a danger that is, but I understand her concern. It's embodied in another quote regarding how well Facebook is living up to the promise it made to the Canadian government to better protect members privacy. After the privacy changes announced last week she said, “They certainly seem to be moving in the opposite direction."

It's true that the constant privacy policy rewrites by Facebook would be better called 'personal publicity faciliators'. And with the odd, bewildering, and downright idiotic things that people post on Facebook blackmailable data will probably be posted by more than a few people. But once it's been posted to Facebook, how much of a lever can it be for blackmail?

Choosing to host malware

ZDNet's Dancho Danchev report on a disturbing development in activism; the opt-in botnet.

In case you don't know what a botnet is, it is a group of computers that have been taken over by malware that allows someone besides the computers owner to take control and/or use the computer to attack other computers, servers, and even botnets. Usually the people hosting the computers in the botnet don't know they've been infected. In the case of an opt-in botnet, though, they do. Not only do they know, they've intentionally infected their computers so a coordinated attack against an entity their activist group doesn't like can be launched. This is similar to activists chaining themselves to trees, vandalizing government (or other) buildings, or bombing whatever they don't like.

This kind of activity is illegal, but most people who become part of opt-in botnets either don't know this, don't care, or think that, as part of a large group, they are less likely to be singled out. They may or may not be right about that last one.

One of the things that make opt-in botnets feasible is the rise of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. But while they make such things easier, they don't guarantee success. The article examines some successful and not so successful opt-in botnets. It's interesting reading. If you find such things interesting, check it out.

A blip from Blippy

A few months ago a new social networking service started up, one with a model I thought would never take off. Blippy posts your credit card purchases online in short, twitterlike 'blips'. The information posted includes what was purchased, where, and for how much. It's not supposed to include your credit card number. But according to Gigaom.com's Liz Gannes, for 196 transactions last week that's exactly what happened. According to Philip Kaplan, cofounder of Blippy, the transactions were from early in the services beta period, but was still being cached by Google. The problem has since been fixed - the search that had revealed credit card numbers doesn't now.

But this just brings us to the burning question in my mind. Why would you want this information to be published online, even without the credit card number? I do see a bright spot, however. Whenever I tried to use Blippy NONE of my accounts showed up to be shared. I guess they know how I really feel about their service.

Update: Blippy has since apologized, contacted affected users and promised to help them with any issues that might come up from the exposed data. They have also commited to hiring a Chief Security Officer (they didn't have one?!!!).

Tori Pennington could have lived

Last Saturday Tori Pennington's body was found by her 12 year old son. In Tuesdays Avalanche-Journal Robin Pyle reported that she was allegedly killed by a man she met through an online dating service. At the time I'm writing this not a whole lot is known, other than she had been talking with Dustin Kendrick online and over the phone for an undisclosed amount of time. It is presumed that this was their first face-to-face meeting. This isn't the first online relationship in Lubbock to end in murder. In 2004 Joanna Rogers disappeared and was later found dead in the Lubbock Landfill. Her killer was initially connected to her by chat records and emails on his computer. We can only guess at the number of people in Lubbock who have been beaten by people they met online but never reported it.

Sometimes bad things happen. But often they can be avoided, and meeting online doesn't have to be any more dangerous than any other way to meet people. So here I am going to suggest a few steps to take when meeting people online. They won't guarantee your safety, but they will at least reduce the risk. They aren't in order of importance because they are all important.

• If you're looking for dates online, go to a large, reputable site that does at least a little checking on it's members. The final call is still up to you, but every extra bit of screening helps.


• Spend plenty of time getting to know them online before meeting in person. The longer you interact and the more you see of their actions, the more likely you're seeing "the real them."


• Don't give them your address or home phone. Give a cell phone number - in most cases you can't get an address by looking up a cell phone number on the internet. With land lines you can.


• I don't care how nice he (or she) is, the first few times you meet in person, don't meet at home, a hotel, or any place you will be alone. That includes going there after the dinner, movie, whatever. Meet in public places, preferably with friends. They will probably see things you don't - good and bad.  You will have to judge at what point you feel 'safe' being alone, but the first date definitely isn't it.


• Alchohol impairs judgment. Drink little or none the first few dates.


• When you do decide it's ok to meet in more private places, make sure someone knows where your going. Having a friend call to check up on you isn't a bad idea, and it can give you an out if you're getting uncomfortable.

To find more ideas for safely dating people you meet online, google "online dating guide" or "safe online dating."

My prayers go out to Tori Pennington's family, especially her children.

Who owns your Facebook?

ZDNET's Ryan Naraine and Dancho Danchev reported on a blackmarket sale of 1.5 million Facebook accounts. The accounts vary from active accounts with loads of friends to semi-autogenerated acounts that don't have any friends yet. The price depends on how many friends the account has.

The article is a FAQ on a report by Verisign's iDefense team, and covers a lot of ground, far more than I can cover here. But one of the things I find very intriguing is the section on "Cybercrime as a Service" (CAAS), something that I'd never thought about, but that is a logical progression when you think about the development of legal business on the web.

Of course, the real question that's probably on your mind right now is either "How concerned about this should I be," or "What can they do with my Facebook account?" Those might be closely followed by, "Why would anyone, especially a criminal, want my Facebook account?"

To answer the last question first, an established Facebook account is instant trust, allowing a criminal to get things from people with far less risk and effort than sending spam or actually burglarizing a house or robbing a bank. It just makes sense that if you can approach a person as someone they know and trust, they're more likely to agree to risky behaviors you might suggest. They also are more likely to open malware you send them and open links, making Facebook accounts perfect mules for infecting their friends.

So how worried should you be about this? Well, you're probably not one of the 1.5 million accounts being sold, but I'd change my password anyway from a computer that is known free of malware just because you can't be sure. There are reported to be more than 400,000,000 users on Facebook. That means that this list of accounts for sale has less than 1/2 of 1% of all Facebook users on it. I've seen people say they are leaving Facebook because of this breach, but I wouldn't leave Facebook because of this problem alone. Of course, there are plenty of other problems that make Facebook a risky proposition.

Facebook to users: Screw privacy

Facebook proposed changes to it's privacy policy and put them online for people to comment on. After reviewing all of the comments, Facebook posted a response here. I would recommend that you read the response, even if you never read the new policy. It is full of information that I'm sure Facebook never intended to release, the biggest revelation being that Facebook considers it their right to use your content - although they claim the privacy policy limits how they can use it. Two of the responses seem to reveal the lie in that to me - I'm going to deconstruct them as I go:

Will Facebook take my creative works and use them for profit?

A number of users raised concerns similar to the following comment: “I am an artist. This section makes me nervous. Does this mean that Facebook plans to sell the artwork, photos or music that I post?” Facebook has never sold its users’ creative works, and has no intention of doing so in the future.

That's cool. Just the way it should be.

But you should be aware that Facebook does try to derive revenue from its website – such as through advertising – and your content appears on our website.

There shouldn't be a butt I mean but, here.

That said, this section limits our use of your content in two important ways that protect you. First, the rights you give Facebook are “subject to your Privacy Settings.” This means, for example, that if you set your privacy settings so that only your friends can see a photo, we cannot show that photo to anyone but your friends.

Hmmm...but in the past the default is to share with everyone. So Facebook is setting the default to share only with friends? Somehow I doubt it.

Similarly, if you opt out of Social Ads in your Privacy Settings, we will respect your decision.

You'd better, but will I ever know?


Second, the license you give us ends when you delete your copyrighted content. This means that the minute you delete it, we will no longer use your content except in the ways we articulate in section 2.

Hold up. Once I delete it, you shouldn't have any rights to my content. Also, unless you take the steps to copyright your Facebook content, it's not copyrighted, which means Facebook can use it. Facebook, you can delete section 2 right now!

And the second section that bothers me:

How will Facebook use, share, and store my content?

Facebook needs the right to use, share, and store your content in order to provide Facebook to you and your friends.

No, you could have chosen another business model. But you chose to use a model that requires you to trick us into releasing data we might not want released.

Our Privacy Policy explains what content we use, share, and store, and includes a number of examples (as do some of our responses to this section). In addition, your Privacy Settings give you the ability to direct and control how we use and share your content.

But only if we hunt them down and change them and never do anything that negates those settings. The default should be not to share - but Mr. Zuckerberg knows that the default setting is the one that most people will keep without thinking, so opt-out gives him more moneymaking power than opt-in.

Who am I kidding. I didn't like any of the replies to users objections. Mark Zuckerbergs announcement yesterday just reinforces my belief that Facebook is not responding to changing social norms, but is trying to push those norms in a direction that benefits Facebooks bottom line, not the interests users of the service.

David Goldman, staff writer for cnn.money.com, covered Facebooks f8 developers conference Wednesday and saw a number of problematic privacy changes. However much more control you may have to make things more private, that control is easily lost: Users will be asked to convert their interests into fan pages:

"Is one of your interests "The Beatles?" Well, now you're a fan of The Beatles. By default, users will receive notifications from their fan pages in their news feed.

Doesn't sound like such a big deal, but here's the kicker: Users who choose to convert their interests to "pages" will lose privacy control with the new changes. Many parts of users' profiles, including hometowns, birthdays, education, religion and work interests would be considered "connections" if a user converts them, making them public to anyone."

Goody! I can create fan pages, but only if I'm willing to give up control of my own information. That's extortion - although in my case they wouldn't find much on my pages, but they shouldn't have the opportunity unless I explicitly give it to them. Facebook is starting to change their privacy policy on an almost monthly basis. Privacy policies should be relatively static, only changing when not changing would cause problems. In light of Facebooks continuing push to take control of my data I've deactivated my Facebook account. If I try to do anything beyond exchanging messages with friends I negate the privacy settings, and it's only a matter of time before Facebook gives up any pretense and says, "To use our site you grant us full use of your content." I'm not willing to do that.

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.

$1000, Free on Facebook!

There are some legitimate "free" offers on the web, although by the time you jump through the hoops to qualify for them it would be cheaper to just buy the "prize" they offer.

Robert McMillan of IDG News reports on PCWorld that there's a free offer appearing on Facebook that's a lot easier, but the prize goes to the conmen, not to you. All you have to do is become a fan and get a free gift card. The scam has covered the gamut, from Ikea furniture to iTunes, and has offered as much as $1000 gift cards. One fan page gathered 70,000 fans before being taken down.

In another article by McMillan, Facebook Spokesman Simon Axten says that right now these pages are leading to marketing websites that generate money through advertising. But traditionally this kind of scam is associated with identity theft, and it is probably only a matter of time before the information gathering gets more personal and identity theft becomes the goal.

Remember, anybody can put up a page on Facebook and claim to be anyone else. And always remember that old adage, "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.'

Facebook puts new spin on old crimes

KTLA.com in LA reports a new spin on a not so new pastime. For that matter the spins probably not all that new. There's not really anything new about groups of teenagers or early twenty-somethings finding an unoccupied house, breaking in, and trashing it. It's also not new that the partiers don't really care if the house is empty because it's abandoned or because the occupants are away. Actually, they probably prefer the occupants be away, that way there's probably food and maybe alcohol already there.

What Facebook and other social media have made possible are a much shorter amount of time needed to setup the "party". Twenty years ago it took time to find a suitable house, let people know where the party was being held, and get everybody there. Today, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and others, a careful online search can find empty houses in minutes. A Facebook update or a tweet can potentially allow thousands of people to find out about the party simultaneously, and in no time you have hundreds of people trashing your home.

As I said, this isn't exactly new. What is new is that many people are now transmitting to anyone who cares to look that they are leaving for an extended periods. So along with having your mail held, your newspaper subscription suspended, and your lights set to go on and off while your gone, make sure no one in your family reports to the world at large that you are going to be gone.

Remember, sites like Facebook are tools. It's up to us how we use them.

Facebook causes syphillis

No, really, it does. According to the Telegraph, "Facebook 'Linked to Syphillis.'"

Reading the article, it turns out that "linked to" is a little stronger than what the Professor Peter Kelly, the researcher who saw a connection said. He saw that a couple of areas of Britain that have increased incidence of syphillis also have high Facebook usage. Professor Kelly observed that "Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex."  Apparently the data he used included where people were hooking up, and a lot of them were through Facebook. Not a smoking gun, more like circumstantial evidence.

Facebook is, of course coming out swinging about the assertion. A spokesman said, among other things, that "Facebook is no more responsible for STD transmission than newspapers responsible for bad vision." Not a perfect analogy, but close enough, I suppose.

I don't know that Facebook is actually making it any easier for people to have casual sex. I do suspect that attitudes and fears about sex have probably changed somewhat in the last 20 years, and that might have something to do with it.

Of course, "Some people on Facebook meet each other for unprotected sex and get STD's" just isn't as snappy a headline.

Ford: First Online Road Devices

Or maybe First Online Road Death? That last is a little unlikely, but in the realm of possibility. Ford is bringing a new meaning to "mobile device," and adding to the list of web-enabled devices. With Microsoft, Ford developed Sync and started putting it in some Ford vehicles in 2008. Sync allows you to connect bluetooth phones or USB devices like MP3 players to your car and control them with voice commands. It's a really neat bit of technology, but Ford wasn't satisfied to rest on their laurels.

Kevin Spiess report on Neoseeker.com, "Ford to use Windows CE in some 2011 models." With the functionality of a full OS, Sync will become more powerful, offer more control options, and will provide wifi connectivity for web browsing when parked. As delivered from the factory the web browsing will only work when the vehicle is in park, but I figure about 2 weeks (or less) after the first wifi enabled Ford is delivered there will be a way to activate browsing while driving.

But as surprising and innovative as wifi enabling a car may be, what is more impressive is that Ford is thinking about security long before implementing wifi in the cars - both to protect users data and to protect the system from malware that might endanger the car and it's occupants. That's important since connectivity will include social networks and other high risk locales.

The security features are pretty decent. A hardware firewall between the engine computer and the entertainment computer is one nice thing. They can't totally separate the two because they need to share things like GPS data and highway speed, to name a couple of things. To help protect from malware Sync will only accept software from Ford, and it won't allow installation through the wifi connection. There are other features to keep your data safe in your car.

And the security doesn't just cover electronic assets. There are features that will make Ford vehicles with Sync unattractive to thieves, too. Engine immobilizer keeps the engine from turning over unless a coded key is used, and a keycode allows the car to be opened even if the keyfob is left in the car.

Ford is taking a lead position in bringing the automobile to the internet, and vice-versa. It will be interesting to see where this trend goes over the next few years.

Facebook, Twitter used to scam brides-to-be, vendors

This is an interesting tale. Setup a Facebook page, garner followers (real or not), get a Twitter account, and rake in the dough. These internet entrepreneurs created a facebook account and tweeted about a nonexistent bridal show, and sold upwards of 5000 tickets, plus getting booth fees from hopeful vendors and a free radiospot in exchange for a reduced booth rental. Not a bad scam. I first read of the scam on Ars Technica in an article by Jacqui Cheng.

It seems that almost $150,000 was scammed from attendees and vendors with this scam. The Facebook page is down, and the twitter account probably is, too. The bad thing is, short of calling the convention center to see if the event is really scheduled, I don't know how you could see through this scam. Maybe the fact that payment was taken through paypal? That's not really an indicator. I'm sure we'll see more about this, and more examples of similar scams in the future.

TMI - some info shouldn't be realtime

February 2009 - "Just landed in Baghdad" tweeted Peter Hoekstra while on a 'secret' trip to Iraq. The media was aware of the trip, but agreed to embargo the information until after they arrived back in the U.S. for the safety of the congressmen. Since the congressman started tweeting before they left, the newspapers needn't have bothered.

March 3, 2010 - "On Wednesday we clean up Qatanah, and on Thursday, god willing, we come home," the soldier wrote on his Facebook page, refering to a West Bank village near Ramallah. That's from a story on Haaretz.com regarding a Facebook security breach. The mission the young man (he may not be a soldier, now) mentioned has been scrapped. According to Robert Mackey on the The Lede such details as the units name and the time of the raid were also revealed.

In the first case, Senator Hoekstra was former head, and senior member of the House intelligence committee. You would think a man with that kind of background would have more sense than to tweet details of his Baghdad itinerary. In the second, you would think a young soldier would be aware that posting details of an upcoming mission on Facebook would be a severe security breach - and could even be considered treason. But I wonder. How many of us actually realize how available things we put on Facebook and twitter really are? Do we really understand that what we put on Twitter and Facebook can be seen by just about anyone? With all the foolish things being put up on Facebook and Twitter, the real surprise isn't that two people posted national security breaking info on social networking sites, it's that we don't see a lot more of this happening.

I'm sure that most of my readers aren't in a position to spill national secrets, but spilling your own secrets can be bad enough. Think before you post on any site, and avoid the embarrassment of foot in mouth.

http://pleaserobme.com/

It's not a joke. Do you use one of the numerous services that let you tweet or otherwise post your location for the world to see? pleaserobme.com searches twitter and posts the tweets that give away the tweeters location.

It's not as nefarious as it sounds (or as it could be). The site was developed by three guys to demonstrate that we have some very bad habits, security-wise. The actual address data appears to be substituted with data from lands far away from the original poster. But that doesn't change the fact that large numbers of people are making their locations known. And part of knowing where you are is knowing where you're not. Which is exactly the information a burglar wants. Not to mention stalkers, psycho exes and assorted crazies.

Do you tweet your location? How often have you said something like, "Going to the game, hope we win. Go Tech!" How many hours would that give a crook to burglarize your home?

Facebook speech protected (sometimes)

Katherine Evans probably wasn't thinking about being part of a landmark case in online Free Speech when she created her Facebook rant against a teacher in 2007. She didn't keep it up long - apparently she was one of the few who didn't like the teacher - but the principal took exception anyway, took her out of her advanced placement classes and suspended her for three days.

In todays Miami Herald Hannah Sampson reports that a Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled that the Facebook page falls under the umbrella of Free Speech:

``Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech,'' Garber wrote. ``It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior.''

This is a very good ruling, in my opinion. The judge recognizes that the schools cannot, and should not, be able to dictate students life off campus. But at the same time it recognizes that there may be cases that Facebook or other online speech would not be protected.

As the internet continues to mature and governments start putting more effort into taming this beast cases like this one will define what we can and can't say online. And in the era of social media, what we can say online will be a defining factor in having a free society.

Our Changing Facebook

Facebook has decided to rearrange the home page, and I'm seeing a lot of complaints. Some are funny, some are whiny. My favorite is "Let's tell yo-mamma jokes about the new Facebook layout."

Myself, I don't have a problem with it. I like having a logout button rather than going to a menu, but other than that, it's ok. What is more interesting to me are the requirements Facebook is enforcing on third party advertisers. The policies have been in place for months, but Facebook recently spelled them out again, and is now requiring advertisers to agree to them. In his February 3rd Inside Facebook column, Eric Eldon gives a synopsis of the new requirements. But put simply, the reuirements boil down to, the ad providers will strictly adhere to Facebook guidelines regarding gathering, holding, and disseminating Facebook user information. They will also provide information to Facebook on their employees and just about any other information Facebook asks for. There are several other requirements that show Facebook is making a serious effort to protect users data.

Now if they would just give us more ability to protect it ourselves.

Punk'd, Facebook style

A few students at the University of Lethbridge, Canada decided to see how easy it was to create a bogus Facebook account and fool people with it. Valerie Fortney of the Calgary Herald reported her story, U of L Facebook prank a lesson in privacy. She quickly pointed out that Facebook is used for many good things before moving on to the point of the story.

But there is a dark side to Facebook, and that is what prompted the students to try their little experiment - apparently as part of a class, but it's never explicitly stated. It was an eye opener. In 24 hours the 'girl' was getting asked out, and having chats with people - some of them involving personal information. In 48 hours, fearful of what could happen if it went on too long, deleted the account. They then went to their class and revealed what they had done. I agree with Ms. Fortney, who says she would have paid money to be there.

Could a similar thing be automated? U of L professor Mary Dyck, an expert on cyberbullying, feels sure that it is already being done. Do you have any friends who are really computers?

At the end of the article, the author notices that an ad on her Facebook page was targeting "48 year old women" who wanted to test Ugg boots. It seems that 2 weeks earlier she'd been checking out Ugg boots on eBay. But she'd never mentioned that, or her age, on Facebook.

This will be my last Sunday post. Starting tomorrow I will post 5 days a week, Monday thru Friday.