Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Monday, July 15, 2013

IAMAI, Facebook partner to educate children on Internet safety:

Press Trust of India | 15-Jul-2013 14:32 PM

Mumbai: Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has joined hands with social networking giant Facebook to launch internet safety education programme in the country for students aged between 13 17 years.

The programme will train children, teachers and parents on how to reap maximum benefits from internet while not compromising on their safety and security, IAMAI and Facebook said in a joint statement today.

The campaign, which is focused on building community awareness on the issue, will also train educators and child safety NGOs about internet safety practices, it added.

As a part of the first phase, the programme will be rolled out across Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad to cover 18,000 students across about 30 schools and institutions, it added.

"IAMAI has been running the Safe Surfing campaign in India for past four years covering 6.25 lakh students across the country. We are delighted that Facebook has come forward to support this critical initiative and enrich the campaign with their global learnings," IAMAI President Subho Ray said.

The programme will conclude with a national conference in New Delhi addressing online child safety issues later this year. The program will be extended to other Indian cities through 2014.

"Safety is an ongoing conversation between parents and kids, teachers and students, companies and the people who use the Internet. We encourage parents to have conversations about safety and technology early and often, in the same way that they talk to their kids about being safe at school, in the car, on public transportation or playing sport," Facebook India Director of Public Policy Ankhi Das said.

Facebook will develop the content and training materials and translate the same in regional languages. As part of the partnership, Facebook safety specialists will work with IAMAI trainers on safety content and participate in these training programs.

Key presentations and events will be live streamed via https://www.facebook.com/FacebookIndia.

Facebook has already created a Safety Advisory Board that advises the company on safety issues. The members of that board are leading Internet safety organisations like Childnet international, Connect Safely, The Family Online Safety Institute, The National Network to End Domestic Violence and Wired Safety.

http://m.ibnlive.com/news/iamai-facebook-partner-to-educate-children-on-internet-safety/406733-11.html

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Facebook's Revamped News Feed: 3 Things To Do:

Informationweek Software

 Facebook's Futuristic Data Center: Inside Tour
Facebook's Futuristic Data Center: Inside Tour
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Facebook is changing its News Feed feature -- significantly. The update will be rolling out to users in the next month or so, but from what we've seen so far, the new News Feed is a vast improvement in the Facebook experience. But because even good changes can be unsettling, here are three tips to smooth the transition when the new News Feed lands on your virtual doorstep.
1. Pay more attention to photos.


MORE SOFTWARE INSIGHTS

Webcasts

More >>

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>
One of the biggest changes to the News Feed is the size and prominence of photos. In fact, during the press event announcing the News Feed changes, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said images will comprise 50% of total News Feed content. That picture of your adorable new baby, that once-in-a-lifetime trip to Australia, or the majestic bald eagle you spotted while hiking will be bigger and brighter, with more visible details than ever. So will the picture of your spouse on a bad hair day (or worse). So be careful what you post. Just saying.
2. Be prepared to drill down for content.
If your current Facebook News Feed is anything like mine, it's a mishmash of promoted posts, suggested pages and updates from the many brands that you've "liked." Oh, and once in a while you'll see an actual update from a friend (a real-world friend, not just the Facebook kind) or family member.
[ For more on Facebook's facelift, see Facebook News Feed: 5 Coolest Changes. ]
That's the problem -- for users and businesses alike -- that Facebook is looking to solve with its new specialized streams. At the press event, Zuckerberg compared the new News Feed to, of all things, a print newspaper, with the News Feed being the equivalent of a front page and new specialized streams akin to the different sections in a newspaper. With the new News Feed, you can choose to consume content from streams dedicated to (among other things) music, photos or updates from pages that you follow. It may take a little getting used to, but this new interface promises to streamline the end-user experience and make it generally more effective.
3. Add the Facebook app to your iPhone and iPad.
If you haven't bothered to use Facebook on your mobile device because you heard the experience was subpar, you should go ahead and download the app soon. It's true that the News Feed of old offered what could be kindly called a less-than-optimal experience, but Facebook designed the new News Feed with mobile in mind from the start. In fact, the Facebook experience on your mobile device will be the same as that on a PC. Facebook says the News Feed changes will roll out to iOS first, then to Android.
Have you gotten the new News Feed yet? If so, what advice would you give to those just starting with it? Please let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Follow Deb Donston-Miller on Twitter at @debdonston.
Attend Interop Las Vegas May 6-10 and learn the emerging trends in information risk management and security. Use Priority Code MPIWK by March 22 to save an additional $200 off the early bird discount on All Access and Conference Passes. Join us in Las Vegas for access to 125+ workshops and conference classes, 300+ exhibiting companies, and the latest technology. Register today!


Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Will Facebook’s Privacy Woes Grow in 2013?

WebProNews.com (Enable Images to Fully Enjoy)

By  

Facebook cannot win the privacy issue. The company thrives on allowing advertisers to target their potential customers with pinpoint accuracy, and that takes highly personal data.

Even if Facebook were to magically be able to provide the privacy settings that its critics want, incidents such as the outing of a Gay college student would still occur. That’s because the problem isn’t the platform – it’s people. The purpose of Facebook is to connect and be social with others. Expecting such a platform to accomodate secrets or systematically attempt to protect users’ privacy is foolish.

Have you been burned by Facebook’s privacy policies? Tell us about it in the comments.
This hasn’t stopped Facebook from trying to fight the losing battle. With multiple privacy lawsuits begin hurled its way, the company really has no choice but to refine its privacy policies in an attempt to please everyone.

Facebook’s year began with allegations that its switch to user Timelines violated a U.S. Federal Trade Commission agreement the company agreed to in November 2011. That agreement states that Facebook will provide “consumers clear and prominent notice” when sharing information beyond their chosen privacy settings.

The trouble is, Facebook privacy settings can often be confusing for users who aren’t computer-savvy, who make up many of the site’s 1 billion members. This is despite the fact that the website’s current privacy settings have already been simplified. Facebook privacy settings were once very in-depth and robust, allowing nearly every type of content to have its own privacy level. The site had to change it’s privacy settings, however, because users complained that the settings were too hidden, obscure, and confusing.
Again, Facebook cannot win. More changes were made to the site’s privacy options on December 21, 2012. The changes were yet another Sisyphean attempt to provide information anyone can use, yet still provide enough functionality to be effective.

To keep Facebook in check, the FTC issued a ruling in August that requires the site to obtain a privacy audit from an independent third party. The site escaped an FTC fine, but now has to be even more careful of each move it makes with regard to privacy.

This could be part of the reason Facebook just this month ended its site governance voting. The question for the coming year is whether Facebook will force privacy on its users so as to stave off lawsuits, or whether it will continue to try and allow users to control their own private Facebook lives.
Should Facebook trust users with more privacy controls, or protect users’ privacy for their own good? Let us know in the comments.

But that’s just the software. The reality behind the blue-lined pages of Facebook is, as it always has been, people. A private group isn’t so private when its contents are leaked by an unscrupulous member. The interplay between free speech, secrets, and human nature is where Facebook’s use as a public publishing platform comes into play.

In March of this year, a 12-year-old girl was bullied by school officials into giving up her Facebook password after posting a poor review of a hall monitor to her Facebook page. It was a perfect demonstration of how Facebook acts as a publisher for those who often do not have a voice in society.
However, unlike publishers of old, Facebook does not and cannot edit content for inappropriateness or libel. It’s a problem that can only be overcome by draconian content filters that would render Facebook useless or by a sense of personal responsibility that hasn’t, and may never, pervade the wider Facebook community.

So, as Facebook enters 2013 as a public company with yet more new privacy settings, it remains to be seen whether the world’s largest social network can survive the onslaught of privacy notions that don’t apply to a free-to-use, global social network. If the company’s recent test of allowing anyone to send Facebook message spam for $1 is any indication, it appears the site will have to keep using the trial-and-error method to work towards a solution that most likely does not exist.

How can Facebook’s privacy issues be solved? Let us know in the comments.

About Sean Patterson
Sean is a staff writer for WebProNews. Follow Sean on Google+: +Sean Patterson and Twitter: @St_Patt

Join WEB WORLD MANIA! on Twitter:

Thursday, December 13, 2012

The FBI says a "Butterfly Botnet" cyber attack targeted 11 million:

The FBI says a "Butterfly Botnet" cyber attack targeted 11 million:

The FBI says a "Butterfly Botnet" cyber attack targeted 11 million computer users around the world and was responsible for over $850 million in losses. The malware program gained access to many individual computers through Facebook, and was able to steal
computer users' credit card and bank account numbers and other valuable information. The attacks occurred between 2010 and October 2012.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Facebook Dodges FTC Fines Over Privacy After Google Gets Nailed:


Facebook Dodges FTC Fines Over Privacy After Google Gets Nailed

Facebook Dodges FTC Fines Over Privacy After Google Gets Nailed
A day after handing Google the largest fine it has ever handed to a single company, for allegedly deceiving users over privacy, the FTC has settled another privacy matter with Google’s industry rival Facebook, with no fine at all, provided Facebook complies with its regular privacy audits.
The FTC says Facebook must obtain consumers’ consent before sharing their information beyond established privacy settings, following a public comment period on the proposed settlement. Charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their info on Facebook private, then allowing it to be shared and made public (repeatedly) have now been resolved.
Facebook is required to obtain biennial privacy audits from an independent third party.
The Commission vote to approve the final order was 3-1-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting and Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen not participating.
Following is the FTC’s statement in its entirety (authored by Chairman Jon D. Leibowitz and Commissioners Edith Ramirez and Julie Brill):
The final consent order in In re Facebook, Inc. that we approve today advances the privacy interests of the nearly one billion Facebook users around the world by requiring the company to live up to its promises and submit to privacy audits. Notably, Facebook will be subject to civil penalties of up to $16,000 for each violation of the order. We intend to monitor closely Facebook’s compliance with the order and will not hesitate to seek civil penalties for any violations.
We write to address the arguments raised by our colleague, Commissioner Rosch, who opposes final approval of the order. One of his objections relates to the extent to which the order would reach the activities of third-party “apps” downloaded by consumers while using the Facebook platform. The Order broadly prohibits Facebook from misrepresenting in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to which it maintains the privacy or security of any information it collects from or about consumers. For a company whose entire business model rests on collecting, maintaining, and sharing people’s information, this prohibition touches on virtually every aspect of Facebook’s operations. Further, the Order sets forth clear examples of how this broad prohibition would apply in connection with apps, by prohibiting Facebook from misrepresenting the extent to which it makes its users’ information accessible to apps; or the steps it takes to verify the privacy or security protections that apps provide.
A statement from Facebook about an app’s conduct may well amount to a promise that Facebook is taking steps to assure the level of privacy or security that the app provides for consumers’ information.
These provisions make clear that Facebook will be liable for conduct by apps that contradicts Facebook’s promises about the privacy or security practices of these apps. Commissioner Rosch also opposes the consent order because it includes a denial by Facebook of the substantive allegations in the Commission’s complaint.
Based on this denial, Commissioner Rosch asserts that the Commission lacks the requisite “reason to believe” that Facebook violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and a basis to conclude that the settlement is in “the interest of the public.”
We strongly disagree with Commissioner Rosch’s view that if the Commission allows a respondent to deny the complaint’s substantive allegations, or use language that is tantamount to a denial, there is no basis for the Commission to conclude that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct or that the consent is in the public interest. As Commissioner Rosch is aware, an extensive investigation and detailed staff recommendation has given the Commission a strong—not just a reasonable—basis to issue its complaint in this case and to conclude that both the complaint and the resulting settlement are in the public interest. Here, as in all enforcement cases, it is the evidentiary record developed by FTC staff during the course of its investigation, not any ensuing settlement agreement, that forms the basis for action by the Commission. A respondent’s denial of liability in a consent agreement does not diminish staff’s extensive investigation or the ability of the Commission to find a reasonable basis to finalize a settlement or to enforce an order that results from settlement negotiations. Moreover, express denials of liability are consistent with the Commission’s current Rules of Practice.
We view the final consent order in this matter to be a major step forward for consumer privacy and hereby approve it.
While we do not believe that a respondent’s denial of liability is reason to reject a settlement that is in the public interest, we share Commissioner Rosch’s desire to avoid any possible public misimpression that the Commission obtains settlements when it lacks reason to believe that the alleged conduct occurred. We commend Commissioner Rosch for focusing our attention on the issue; going forward, express denials will be strongly disfavored. We also appreciate Commissioner Rosch’s suggestion that consent order language that the respondent “neither admits nor denies” a complaint’s allegations may very well be a more effective way to ensure that there are no misimpressions about the Commission’s process. Accordingly, we will consider in the coming months whether a modification to the Commission Rules of Practice is warranted.
Do you think this is a fair settlement, or did Facebook get off too easy?
Image from All Things D conference
About Chris Crum
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Follow Chris on Twitter, on StumbleUpon, on Pinterest and/or on Google: +Chris Crum.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Should Facebook Likes Be Protected As Free Speech?


Josh Wolford

Should Facebook Likes Be Protected As Free Speech?

Recommend on FacebookThursday, Aug 09, 2012

Is clicking the "like" button on Facebook, something millions of users do dozens of times every single day, an act of protected free speech? 

According to the purveyors of the like button, yes, it most certainly is. 

Facebook makes this assertion in a brief filed in support of a Deputy Sheriff who was fired, he says, because he liked his boss' opponent on the social network. 

According to court documents, Deputy Sheriff Daniel Ray Carter of Hampton, Virginia "liked" the page of "Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff." As you're well aware, when a user likes a page on Facebook, that information is pushed to ths user's Timeline and their friends' news feeds. Apparently, this didn't go over too well with Sheriff B.J. Roberts, Carter's boss and then incumbent in the election. 

How far should free speech extend in this country? Should a "like" be protected as free speech? How about a retweet or a +1, for that matter? Let us know in the comments. 

Roberts ended up winning and Carter was promptly fired from his position. He claims that he was fired for liking the campaign page of Robert's opponent, Jim Adams. Of course, firing someone for their political beliefs is a no-no in most areas of the country, so Carter sued. 

But he was unsuccessful in his suit, as the judge on the case ruled that a Facebook "like" is not protected as free speech, as it doesn't contain "actual statements."
It is the Court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.
Carter wasn't the only employee fired for their alleged support of the opposing candidate. Another man, David Dixon, was also terminated. He claimed that his firing was due to a bumper sticker. Here's what the same judge had to say about Dixon's assertions:
Dixon attempted to keep his political opinions secret. Having not alleged any specific speech, Dixon claims that he had a bumper sticker on his car, and that he was "pretty sure" others saw it. If the Court had evidence that the Sheriff was aware of the presence of the bumper sticker supporting Adams, then Dixon might have sufficiently alleged constitutionally protected speech.
Translations: In this specific case, Dixon failed to establish the fact that his superior had seen the bumper sticker and therefore the firing could have been politically motivated.But if he had, he would've had a case for protected free speech. 

Facebook likes = insufficient. Bumper stickers = protected. That's the message we get here. 

Fast forward a bit, and Carter has appealed the decision. Now, Facebook is going to bat for him, arguing that their "like" is free speech in the same way that a political bumper sticker is free speech. "When a Facebook User Likes a Page on Facebook, she engages in speech protected by the First Amendment," says Facebook in the brief. 

They go on:
The district court's holding that"'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection" because it does not "involve actual statements," J.A. 1159, betrays amisunderstanding of the nature of the communication at issue and disregards well-settled Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. Liking a Facebook Page (or other website) is core speech: it is a statement that will be viewed by a small group of Facebook Friends or by a vast community of online users.

When Carter clicked the Like button on the Facebook Page entitled "Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff," the words "Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff" and a photo of Adams appeared on Carter's Facebook Profile in a list of Pages Carter had Liked, J.A. 570, 578 – the 21st-century equivalent of a front-yard campaign sign.

If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff," there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech. Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer's mouse, does not deprive Carter's speech of constitutional protection.
Strong argument. Although we won't know how the appeals court rules, well, until they rule - it's safe to say that Mr. Carter has a solid chance to win this one. I just logged onto Facebook and saw that one of my friends liked the page "Dogs Against Mitt." From that, I can assume that either he agrees with that cause (and therefore is against Mitt Romney) or he simply wants to follow the updates of that page (Facebook likes don't necessarily denote support). 

Either way, it's possible that he's taking a position, and therefore his position must be protected by the first amendment. 

Claiming that "like" is not tantamount to "speech" is a pretty hard position to take. If my friend put that exact phrase on a bumper sticker or printed it out on a t-shirt and wore it around, it's unlikely that anyone would fail to identify that as speech. 

Do you think "liking" something on Facebook should be protected free speech? If not, why not? What do you think is the difference between a "like" and other forms of protected speech? Let us know in the comments. 

Facebook 1st Amendment
 

[via GigaOm] 

What are your thoughts? [Digg This!] [Facebook] [Twitter] [StumbleUpon]
Comment Now... Subscribe to our Newsfeed

About the Author:
Josh Wolford is a Writer for WebProNews. He likes beer, Sriracha and Cormac McCarthy. Mostly beer.

Follow him on Twitter: @joshgwolf | Google+: Joshua Wolford | StumbleUpon: joshgwolf

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Can Twitter Beat Facebook and Google+?



As you might imagine, there’s been a lot of talk about social networks at the Web 2.0 Summit, and particularly the escalating three-way battle among Facebook, Google and Twitter. While Google and Facebook have had their fair share of announcements recently, Twitter just added some major firepower to its arsenal, courtesy of Apple.
What do you think? Can Twitter win the social network market share war? Let us know what you think in the comments. Find this topic interesting? Why not share it on StumbleUpon, Facebook, Twitter or Google+?
One thing does seem clear. Deep Twitter integration with Apple’s iOS is huge for Twitter.
“The iOS integration is going to be absolutely huge for us, even better than we thought it was,” CEO Dick Costolo is quoted as saying at the Summit. “I didn’t realize how frictionless this would be. It’s so native.”
As far as Costolo is concerned, it is Twitter’s simplicity that is its biggest weapon against Facebook and Google+ (although I’d say that iOS integration is a pretty helpful weapon). He says part of the reason that Twitter has become so popular is because of its simplicity, and the fact that they’ve refrained from adding too many features, implying that this will continue to separate them from the pack as competitors continue to add more and more features.
That’s an interesting point, because Facebook and Google are basically in a “feature race” as Google’s Bradley Horowitz recently put it. In fact, Google CEO Larry Page touted the fact in the company’s earnings call last week, that Google+ added 100 features in 90 days.
Facebook certainly keeps changing things up.
Costolo’s comments are also interesting considering that this year, Twitter has perhaps added more features than any other time in Twitter’s history (since co-founder Jack Dorsey returned to the company). Dorsey, by the way, has recently even been called “the next Steve Jobs,” and by an early Apple employee. He does also run Square, which many see as a revolutionary product in the payments industry. It can’t hurt Twitter to have this kind of leadership at the core of its product development.
Perhaps the more important battle, however, is that for identity, rather than features, and that’s another area where that tight iOS integration might come in handy for Twitter. Apple announced that in its first 3 days of availability, it sold 4 million iPhone 4S devices (which run iOS 5). iOS 5 is also available for the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad, iPad 2, iPod Touch 3rd generation, and iPod Touch 4th generation. Word is that a third of eligible devices have already been updated (which means potentially 2/3 more could still be upgraded), and Costolo says daily iOS Twitter sign-ups have already tripled due to the new iOS integration.
The description of the Twitter integration from Apple says: “iOS 5 makes it even easier to tweet from your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. Sign in once in Settings, and suddenly you can tweet directly from Safari, Photos, Camera, YouTube, or Maps. Want to mention or @reply to a friend? Contacts applies your friends’ Twitter usernames and profile pictures. So you can start typing a name and iOS 5 does the rest. You can even add a location to any tweet, no matter which app you’re tweeting from.”
Once iOS 5 was finally released last week, Twitter wrote a blog post about it saying: “Simply enter your Twitter login information into your device settings, and you’ll always be connected to your Twitter account. This means you can tweet directly from Apple apps like Camera, Maps, Photos, Safari and YouTube, along with third party apps, such as Chomp, Flipboard, LivingSocial, Instagram, MadPad, PopSugar, Showyou,SoundTracking and Zynga’s Words with Friends.”
Twitter on iOS
And it’s not as if you have to use iOS to use Twitter.
“We think we can reach every person on the planet, we think the way to do that is to simplify it,” Costolo is quoted as saying. “Over time, Google+ and Facebook will be more and more different than the experience we want to pass onto our users.”
On that note, the Telegraph has some interesting words from former Facebook President Sean Parker (who is still a shareholder), most notably, “The strategic threat to Facebook is that power users have gone to Twitter or to Google+.”
That doesn’t mean that all (or even the majority of) power users have abandoned Facebook entirely, but if a lot of them are using these competing services more, that means less time spent somewhere.
You know who else seems to be using Twitter more and more? The young.
Back to that topic of identity for a second. There is a lot of controversy about identity and the Internet. Facebook and Google+ both want your real identity as your identity with their respective services. I’m Chris Crum in real life, so they want me to be Chris Crum on Facebook and Google+ (Google is even stingy about what pics it lets authors use on their Google Profiles). On Twitter, however, I’m CCrum237. If I wanted, I could be anyone else I wanted to be (as long as the name wasn’t taken). There are valid points to both sides of the Internet anonymity debate, but the reality is that our online identities are being tied much more to the real world. It’s not just about status updates and picture sharing anymore. It’s about paying for goods at a store (among other things). At least that’s the direction we’re headed in. But that’s a conversation for another article.
4Chan founder Christopher Poole is quoted as saying at the summit that Facebook and Google approach to identity “degrades humanity,” and that “Facebook and Google do our identity wrong, Twitter does it better.” He’s just one man, but you better believe there are quite a few people who share similar views, and that is one clear differentiator of Twitter compared to its competitors. That’s one thing you can get with Twitter that you can’t get with Facebook or Google+. And that’s just another piece of the puzzle.
Twitter is currently worth $8 billion according Costolo, who is quoted as saying, “Let’s just call it an even $8 billion.” I have a feeling that number is going to go up substantially.
According to Costolo, Twitter users are sending out about 250 tweets per day. I’d be surprised if that number hasn’t increased significantly in another month.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Twitter will be dethroning Facebook as the most-used social network in the near future, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen one day. Remember when Myspace was on top? Either way, it’s going to be an interesting battle to watch, especially now that Twitter is heavily integrated with the ultra popular iPhones and iPads.
What do you think? Will Twitter ever be able to surpass Facebook? Share your thoughts in the comments.
About Chris Crum
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Follow WebProNews on Facebook or Twitter. Twitter: @CCrum237 StumbleUpon: Crum Google: +Chris Crum