NOVEMBER 7, 2008

I am big fan of internet snooping. It never ceases to amaze me, what I can learn about people through a simple Google search. I’ve tracked down wayward college classmates for our alumni website. I once planned a reunion for a summer journalism program I attended in 1986 and tracked down, online, almost 75% of the people who attended.  And that was all before Facebook and LinkedIn, two sites that have made internet snooping even richer.  It’s no surprise that it has been over two years since Merriam-Webster added the verb “to google” to the dictionary. Googling has become a way of life.

This week I came across an interesting angle on the Google culture.  Buried underneath all of the election news was this article in The Washington Post (and printed in various other papers) about litigation consultants using the internet to get information about potential jurors. For example, a trial consultant working for a client involved in a patent case learned via a potential juror’s website that she “had spent a lifetime marketing exclusive sequined gowns for beauty contestants, only to have them copied without compensation.” Clearly, she was a good jury candidate for a client bringing a patent suit, given her sympathy for intellectual property holders alleging infringement.

According to the article:

Now, with a wealth of information online - newspaper letters to the editor, petition signatures, club memberships, campaign contributions - retrievable with a couple of keystrokes, Internet surfing can produce a detailed picture of how an individual votes, spends money and sounds off on controversial issues.

For some reason, this development doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t fault the lawyers for using these tools to learn all they can about jurors - I wouldn’t expect them to shy away from a free resource that offers significant insight into the minds of the individuals in whose hands their clients’ fate rests. But I can’t shake a nagging feeling that this is not what the jury system was supposed to be built on. Jurors are basically supposed to be anonymous and seemingly impartial, and the Google effect basically makes that impossible.  Lawyers can now practically custom design their ideal jurors, based not just on demographic data and courtroom demeanor, but also on the jurors’ own thoughts, history, and actions.

Just another byproduct of the Information Age? A troubling intrusion into personal privacy? Or a fundamental flaw in our judicial system?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 24, 2008

I am not a particularly nosy person. I like to think of myself as well-informed and proactive. Okay… who am I kidding? It’s so easy to be nosy nowadays! (And as David referenced in his post a few months ago, I’m not the only one.)

Google serves as a wonderful little sidekick that can give me juicy tidbits about people, places, and things whenever I want them. Thanks to Yelp, I can research the service at the restaurant I’m thinking of going to and read reviews from real patrons. Sites like Rate My Professor prepare me for what to expect from instructors, as well evaluate my books before I buy them for a class. Rate My Cop evaluates police officers based on personal accounts of interactions by people online. (As you might imagine, some people have not-so-nice things to say about the officer that just wrote them a ticket hours earlier.) A friend of mine even showed me how to look up county information to find out if people have traffic tickets or arrests. All you need is a name and a county to search in.

When I recently moved to a new house, Rotten Neighbors took the mystery out of the situation - it gave me the chance to screen my neighbors before even meeting them. And, I admit that after I finished checking out my own neighborhood, I had fun plugging in the addresses of my family and friends.

But, does this knowing all information, especially information about the people around us, make us safer? Happier? Probably not. In many cases, it just give us another thing to worry about. And let’s face it, for most of us, our list of worries is already pretty long as it is. Do we really need to think about that crazy write-up that someone posted online about our neighbor that may or may not be true?

When all is said and done, we should use these tools when necessary, but not go overboard. I am learning to take the information and reviews I read online with a grain of salt and focus more on the number and quantity of bad reviews more than the specific details of one person’s account. This keeps me from stewing over something that may or may not be biased, and unnecessarily ruining my perception of a restaurant, neighbor, cop, or person unfairly. Then both technology and my conscience will be on my side.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 18, 2008

In and around Washington, D.C. you encounter tourists on a daily basis.  Whether on the Metro, walking around downtown, taking a tour of the monuments or going to souvenir shops, it is inevitable that you will run into tourists at any time of year.  Sometimes these individuals might be talking loudly and you have no choice but overhear some of these conversations.  And sometimes, those conversations are absurd, comical, or puzzlingly ignorant.  I should note, however, that it is not just visitors to the city that make some of these interesting statements.  Yes, on occasion even the city’s own citizens engaging in strange conversations.

When you hear something you think is too good to keep to yourself, you may call a friend or send a text. But today, I am pleased to inform you that there are better, more public outlets for all these befuddling statements.  For your pleasure, Eavesdrop DC  and Overheard DC  from DCist.  These sites/sections specialize in posting anonymous conversations that are too good not to share.  Whether the source is local or a tourist, these sites include up-to-the-minute reports of some of the city’s “best” offerings.  This is just another example of how anything anyone does in these hype-media times can (and probably will) find its way onto the internet.

What does this mean?

Be suspicious and cognizant the next time you are talking in public, because you never know when someone is waiting to post part of your conversation on the internet.  It could be that person standing next to you in line at the store, walking down the street, reading a book on a bench, or that guy looking at you and talking on his shoephone.

[Comments(5) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 30, 2008

Cuil Cool, no?

If you’ve read any of my blog posts, you know I love my privacy.   That is why I’m so excited about Cuil (pronounced “cool”), the new search engine created by ex-Google employees. According to the AP, “Cuil is hoping to attract traffic by promising not to retain information about its users’ search histories or surfing patterns – something that Google does, much to the consternation of privacy watchdogs.”  

In fact, on its FAQ page, Cuil acknowledges that this privacy issue is such a concern for Google’s users by stating flippantly, “We analyze the Web, not our users.  Read our Privacy Policy for details.  It’s short.”   How short is it?  “When you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period.”   Excellent!  While the search engine does leave something to be desired (to be fair, it is still in its infancy stage), I do find that this promise of privacy has enticed me to use Cuil.  Will you?  Is privacy a big enough issue for you that you’d switch from Google?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 23, 2008

Very few things impact us more than the quality of our health care services, which is why I was intrigued by this news story about hospitals using “undercover patients” to judge doctors’ performances.  In fact, the American Medical Association recently considered endorsing this practice.  The debate generated some heated discussion - just check out the comments left on New York Times blogger Tara Parker Pope’s post on the subject.

Now I am as much a privacy freak as the next person, but something deep inside me applauded this sneaky approach to quality control.  Of course, many doctors don’t like it, but there are exceptions.  Dr. Frank J. Weinstock responded to Parker Pope’s post:

As a physician, the concept of “secret shoppers” should start with us. Unfortunately, not enough physicians take the time to observe their own reception areas or the reception areas at the hospital or listen to the way their staffs speak to patients in the office and on the phone. If so, there would be many changes. We should have nothing to fear from secret shoppers if we pay attention to our offices ourselves.

The practice of using “mystery shoppers” is already commonplace in the retail and food industries.  (Just beware of scams asking you to pay to become one).

When quality is such a key measurement for consumers, how far should a company go to ensure it’s meeting its customers needs?  I don’t want to live in a Big Brother world, but if we are each doing our jobs as we should, does it matter if someone is looking over our shoulder?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 30, 2008

It’s called “Reality Mining” and it works like this: by tracking aggregated non-personal G.P.S. data and running it through specialized software, information analysts are able to paint an interesting picture of how people live:

…Sense Networks, a software analytics company in New York, earlier this month released Macrosense, a tool that aims to do just that. Macrosense applies complex statistical algorithms to sift through the growing heaps of data about location and to make predictions or recommendations on various questions — where a company should put its next store, for example. Gregory Skibiski, 34, the chief executive and a co-founder of Sense, says the company has been testing its software with a major retailer, a major financial services firm and a large hedge fund.

Tony Jebara, also 34, the chief scientist and another co-founder of Sense, said, “We can predict tourism, we can tell you how confident consumers are, we can tell retailers about, say, their competitors, who’s coming in from particular neighborhoods.”

All this information can then be sold to businesses trying to capitalize on location trends and traffic patterns. It seems like a slam dunk, if it weren’t for the thorny issue of privacy. On the other hand, some reality prospectors seem to have an answer for that too:

Mr. Skibiski says that Sense is interested only in aggregate data and that it’s looking for broad patterns, not the specific behavior of individuals. But he recognizes the privacy issue. He says he believes that people should own their own data, control when it is disclosed and receive some remuneration for it. His original idea in 2002 was to pay people for their data, but a formula for doing so proved too complicated.

Instead, Sense decided to trade services for data. On the same day it released Macrosense, it announced a new software package called Citysense, which uses location data to show where people are going, say, for nightlife, and maps their activity. Consumers who have iPhones or BlackBerrys can sign up for the service, which does not ask for personal information. Over time, the software will learn their patterns and recommend places they might like to go, or show them where other people with similar patterns are going. If they want to purge their data, they can do so at any time.

We make these sort of trade-offs more often than we think. If we want to use certain tools, like PageRank on the Google Toolbar, we have to allow for anonymous usage statistics. A number of software packages ask permission to share anonymous data as part of the EULA process. And every time you scan your little keychain card to get a discount at the supermarket, you’re adding your info to the dataset.

With all the compromises we make to privacy, is there value in the kind of trade Sense Network is willing to provide - a version of its service that’s useful to you, in exchange for data that it can sell to others? My guess is that it’s the sort of thing we’ll have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, but we’d better start thinking about it. We’ll only see more of this kind of thing, not less, as G.P.S. and location-specific services become more ubiquitous.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 13, 2008

My BFF Meghan is always keeping me up to date on new innovations, technologies, trends and fads. She’s the first person I know to have used Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, a Wii, Gmail, Twitter, or a blog. If she hadn’t signed me up for Facebook or Gmail years ago I’d be just another laggard asking what iGoogle is.

The other day Meg sent me a link to Google Maps to view a new innovation, Street View. If you haven’t already seen this, it’s pretty crazy. In 40 areas that Google has chosen, such as Hampton Roads, you can see what the area looks like as if you were driving around the neighborhood. She asked me, “Cool or Creepy?”

When she first told me I thought, of course it’s cool! I can visit places I’ve always wanted to see, view how an area has changed, and visit my parent’s front yard whenever I want (of note: my parents live in the Hampton Roads area, and no I won’t tell you their address!). However, when I looked up my parent’s address, what did I see, but my mom unloading groceries!! Now, maybe I’m a little protective of my mom but seeing that made me feel it was a little more creepy than cool. Although Google has “face blurring” capabilities, takes into account homeland security issues, and doesn’t film outside places like battered women shelters, I still felt as if someone was spying on my mom.

Nowadays you’re being watched by a camera, tracked on your computer, and traced by tiny chips in your clothes. After walking my mom through how to use the street view, she seemed more excited than worried that she was “on the map.” Do we no longer care that companies track us? Is this just a normal part of public life? As Meghan would say, “Cool or Creepy?”

[Comments(5) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 19, 2008

Full disclosure: I am a private person.  I don’t like giving out my phone number or email to strangers. Even posting on this blog can creep me out! A lot of friends have asked me to join LinkedIn or Facebook, but that is just asking too much for me.  I don’t know enough about - or trust, for that matter - the privacy protections these sites have to offer. 

Sometimes I wonder if this is a generational thing – I’m in my early 30s and I work with colleagues of various ages.  Most of the 20-somethings in the office have Facebook and MySpace pages, and think nothing of posting videos or photos of their lives for the world to see.  But then again, many people I know also have Gmail accounts for e-mail and other purposes, despite the fact that Gmail reserves the right to review the data in e-mails sent through or saved on those Gmail accounts.

In recent weeks, I have been floored at some of the headlines I’ve read involving privacy and our rights as citizens of the United States,  from the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report documenting continuing misuse of the Patriot Act powers by the FBI, to the U.S. government collecting DNA samples from all citizens arrested in connection with any federal crime (in the past, the policy was collection only upon conviction).  In a recent Time article, Massimo Calabresi asked if Americans cared about Big Brother.  His answer?  A resounding no – “the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security.”   As a society, on a day-to-day basis, are we willing to exchange diminished privacy in return for material convenience?

What do you think? Is diminished privacy – and the lack of attention we pay to it – a generational matter?  Is it a trade-off for national security after 9/11?  Or are we just too tired, too saturated from all the unwanted intrusions in our lives, to fight yet another battle against the overwhelming nature of modern life?

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 30, 2008

Ryan wrote last week about a fictional (but plausible) scenario where Internet users could enjoy the benefits of a personal Google Health Advisor. While the scenario sounds intriguing - and even beneficial - I’m a bit more skeptical.

Yesterday, I read on Ars Technica that the Senate passed a bill last week barring employers and insurance providers from considering genetic test results when hiring or or making coverage decisions. This is the downside to one’s genetic blueprint being easily accessible. Aside from lack of privacy, there’s also room for error. From the post:

Combined, the complexities and potential for error limit the informational value of most genetic tests. Any proper use of this information will require both care in interpreting cutting edge scientific information and care in performing the genetic tests, including retesting for confirmation. Are employers or insurance companies up for the expense involved in the level of care necessary to make personalized genetic decisions? This seems improbable.  Even if they do, the picture generated by our current level of genetic knowledge would be, at best, incomplete.

Worse yet, the very concept threatens to undermine another of the greatest potential benefits of the genome: personalized medicine. The goal of personalized medicine is to tailor treatments to a the unique genetic defects that have helped foster a disease, be it diabetes or cancer. But, if insurers can deny coverage based on those same genetic traits, the patient may never see the treatment.

There are a whole host of other reasons to be leery of decisions based on genetic factors, including the fact that some factors are more prevalent within some ethnic groups, raising the specter that genetics may serve as a rationale for some forms of racism. But the most powerful argument is that any genetic policies will be extremely difficult to do well and, even if done properly, could still get things wrong. Combine that with the potential for genetic-based decision making to inhibit the use of our new-found knowledge, and there is a potential for harm that could arise from policies such as the ones that may soon be outlawed.

New technologies can help us or hurt us, but if we rush into them, it’s hard to see the risks before they’re on top of us. Maybe it’s just my take on things, but I prefer to take a slightly more cautious approach.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 21, 2008

By now, everyone has watched some sort of video on YouTube.  Many of these videos are funny clips forwarded around by friends that provide a quick distraction from whatever else it is we happen to be doing at the time. 

According to YouTube, the purpose of the website is:

[to] see first-hand accounts of current events, find videos about their hobbies and interests, and discover the quirky and unusual. As more people capture special moments on video, YouTube is empowering them to become the broadcasters of tomorrow.

I don’t think the founders of YouTube ever thought that it would become an outlet for teens to show off their malicious behavior or bitter wives to trash their husbands as part of divorce battles.

New York socialite Tricia Walsh Smith is using the site to trash her husband in their ongoing divorce battle by trashing his kids, his behavior in the bedroom and all around character. You have to see it to believe it.

Dr. Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, told “TODAY”s Meredith Vieira, “We’re at a critical moment where people are turning to public broadcasts to express private thoughts. But I don’t think it’s connecting people necessarily. I think it’s disconnecting them from their own life stories.”

In case you missed it, a couple weeks ago several teens lured another teen into a house for the express purpose of beating her up, filming it, and then posting the video on YouTube.  Local authorities intervened before the tape was posted and the girls are now in jail.  You have to wonder why these girls thought they would be able to post violence on such a public forum and get away with it.

One last example of using YouTube for personal “gain” involves the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team. The Sporting News Blog reports that fans sitting in the $2 cheap seats were getting drunk and causing fights, again for the purpose of posting videos of these fights on You Tube.  The Blue Jays management has since banned beer from being sold in these cheap seats.

With the advances in technology today, it is easier than ever for people to communicate and get their 15 minutes of fame. However, the negative side of these advances is becoming all too clear, which brings up the question: should sites like YouTube should be regulated? And, if so, how much?

One of the lawyers in the Walsh Smith case summarizes the issue by saying:

“Where does it end? Over the last few years, we’ve had to deal with e-mails getting into the press, e-mails that nobody thought would end up as Exhibit A. But throwing your secrets onto YouTube for the whole world to see — and comment on! That brings it to a whole new level.  There’s no such thing as a private life anymore.”

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]