Social media, while useful for the rapid distribution of information, also serves as a vehicle for a sense of self-importance to those who feel that people really care what they ate, what they did, and who they don't like. Too often this rapid sharing of information causes issues though. Several things come to mind. First, you can't tell tone or intent via text. My own kids will say "can you believe what so and so said?". Almost always it's something that can be taken several different ways...usually the worst is assumed. Second, most people would NEVER say things to peoples face that they'll write in a text, email, blog, or other methods that don't involve actually seeing someone. And third, once sent/posted/tweeted, many of those comments that seemed appropriate to that mood at that one particular moment, can't easily be retracted.
The comedy of the Gen-Y's is they don't see that they're often losing the ability to communicate face to face, and they share details of their lives online that perhaps they'd never do in person and as with most things online, controlling information once "out there" is very difficult. They'll get it eventually, hopefully before they do or say something they'll regret years later.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
the ability (knowledge) to better control one's "privacy" yields a less-worrysome attitude about possiole violations of that privacy.
Or, the "Gen-Y" have not yet experienced the consequences of poor management of their privacy.
Or, the "Gen-Y" have not yet experienced the consequences of poor management of their privacy.
You have alluded to the same dilemma that I have been pondering, or can it be both?
Privacy is already gone and guess which generation took it away? CISPA is just the beginning. Protecting your privacy on the Internet is a catch 22. The only way to guarantee privacy is to not go on the Internet.
Is what your definition of privacy is. Without knowing that it is hard to have a discussion. Millennials have a different definition than you do. Determining who is right is a whole different thing.
to solve if you never publicly use your real name. I haven't since 2001. And If I have to, I use fake background information; although for the sake of accurate interaction with other professionals, I don't do that here on TR. If you do a simple Google search of my fake name, you will see me all over the place. That doesn't bother me much.
Nick did hit it on the nail head though. I did have to use my real name when I was employed by a non-profit. But we were under tight HIPAA regulations, and even my email was under SSL and VPN during my entire stay there. So I doubt much leaked to the public arena.
Nick did hit it on the nail head though. I did have to use my real name when I was employed by a non-profit. But we were under tight HIPAA regulations, and even my email was under SSL and VPN during my entire stay there. So I doubt much leaked to the public arena.
You are most likely in many databases government and other-wise. My research has shown that most privacy breaches are through attacks on these databases, not what an individual does or does not do.
to what Michael said, there is the degrees of separation problem. They can figure out who you are by linking back through your friends and behavior on the net. (They being FB in particular.) Trying to remain anonymous is pretty much a futile effort these days thanks to the amount of data they have and how they can mine it.
but if you become that kind of a target, all bets are off anyway. I just would like to fly just below the radar of the robot types of surveilance. Of course Michael points out that it is the compromise of the online vendors that cause one big leak in that area of personal identity, and he has a good point there.
It is too bad that some kind of realistic security standard didn't come out with congressional over-site a long time ago; but lawmakers are too ignorant to even think about pushing in that direction. I suppose true privacy is doomed, but I'm still willing to beat the drum no matter what.
It is too bad that some kind of realistic security standard didn't come out with congressional over-site a long time ago; but lawmakers are too ignorant to even think about pushing in that direction. I suppose true privacy is doomed, but I'm still willing to beat the drum no matter what.
would have been just as worthless as everything else they've managed to screw up.
The best solution is to alter your own behavior. If you aren't willing to be held accountable for writing or saying something, then don't write or say it. The information age is dawning. Soon there will be no such thing as privacy, regardless of how many handles you may have. In return, anyone with internet access has all of the knowledge of mankind at his fingertips. (Unless you have enough money to lock it down and keep it secure, of course!)
The best solution is to alter your own behavior. If you aren't willing to be held accountable for writing or saying something, then don't write or say it. The information age is dawning. Soon there will be no such thing as privacy, regardless of how many handles you may have. In return, anyone with internet access has all of the knowledge of mankind at his fingertips. (Unless you have enough money to lock it down and keep it secure, of course!)
They grew up with the government knowing who they were by parents giving up their SSN's to schools. They were encouraged to share and receive accolades for the sharing. Not saying there is anything wrong with that in a exploding population where security becomes "Big Brother" The fallout is soon to be seen.
As to what you mean by "Security becomes Big Brother?" As a huge fan of Mr. Blair, I have to ask.
that they got SSNs in the hospital when they were born (rather than waiting until they began to work, like us oldsters...
I thought it was odd, and realized that SSN was being used for more than employment. I have written articles about bad guys who find new-born SSN and sell them. As the new born or parents are not going to worry about the SSN until the child starts working.
The first year the Infernal Revenue started requiring SSNs on the tax return for all claimed children, there were seven million fewer exemptions claimed.
One example:
In a nation wide (Netherlands) electronics chain the cashier asked for part of my zip code. The complete zip code in the Netherlands determin the city and which part of a street you live in. The first 4 digits determine the block you live in. The answer to the question of the cashier would give:
- the block I lived in
- what I bought
- At which time frame
- What kind of payment I used
- Probably by using a debit/creditcard who I am.
- The amount I spend.
- Which subsidiary of the store
Combine this information with thousands of other such transactions these stores can put together a lot of demographic information....
In a nation wide (Netherlands) electronics chain the cashier asked for part of my zip code. The complete zip code in the Netherlands determin the city and which part of a street you live in. The first 4 digits determine the block you live in. The answer to the question of the cashier would give:
- the block I lived in
- what I bought
- At which time frame
- What kind of payment I used
- Probably by using a debit/creditcard who I am.
- The amount I spend.
- Which subsidiary of the store
Combine this information with thousands of other such transactions these stores can put together a lot of demographic information....
to transmit this information over SSL or even a VPN connection. I don't consider that quite in the same category as this topic. However, I can see your point as to how much information is actually needed for a clerk in an ordinary mercantile transaction.
Merchants are clueless as to why or what is needed to carry out the transaction. They just do what is required for them to get paid.
and I keep forgetting about sloppy point of sale practices; thanks for bringing me back to reality once again! 
or perhaps 
is more appropriate?
or perhaps is more appropriate?
A while back I wrote an article about how a group of researchers were able to glean a person's entire social security number from just the last four digits and the information you mentioned.
this person recommends dispensing with privacy completely, and using a firm(ware) data base as a cross check to protect your rights. The argument being it is worse to have someone build a fake you than the real you - Might be on to something here - under this system your ID could never be compromised, because it is written in stone - so to speak - so no one could simulate you - and no one could rob the data base for more knowledge to complicate the scheme.
Perhaps this would make it easier to clean up one's ID at the big three credit bureaus because they would have an authority they could cross check. I saw on 60 minutes Sunday, that it is still a nightmare to get inaccurate information off your credit report, because they essentially leave the onus on you to prove yourself! A very vexing situation indeed!
Perhaps this would make it easier to clean up one's ID at the big three credit bureaus because they would have an authority they could cross check. I saw on 60 minutes Sunday, that it is still a nightmare to get inaccurate information off your credit report, because they essentially leave the onus on you to prove yourself! A very vexing situation indeed!
They aren't the same thing. How is putting all my information on public display protecting it?
This would be a data base that was only used by authorities and credit bureaus for reference. Privacy is the issue here, because that is exactly what protects your personal ID. Social sites, and other vendors, would only have access to certain data, but that data would be like a flag or benchmark, you wouldn't really be able to verify exactly who the individual is in a complete way, but you would know the flag was legitimate, because the underlying data base would be without compromise. Obviously to develop such a data base, you would have to have the latest and most high assurance system, and new security technology to harden such a site. This would be a system that was better than Fort Knox, and actually the government is a bad example, because I believe even DARPA has been compromised in the past.
My client actually did want full disclosure, because this individual saw inaccurate information as more dangerous than everyone knowing exactly who you are. I'm not willing to go that far, but my modification of the idea seems possible. The "Flag" I reference here, would be an encrypted ghost identity tied to the real data. That way if a vendor was compromised, a cross check would catch the anomaly and dump the old ID, to create a new one, that was synchronized across the internet automatically. The criminals couldn't do anything with the old information any more, so they couldn't impact the victim of the privacy breach.
My client actually did want full disclosure, because this individual saw inaccurate information as more dangerous than everyone knowing exactly who you are. I'm not willing to go that far, but my modification of the idea seems possible. The "Flag" I reference here, would be an encrypted ghost identity tied to the real data. That way if a vendor was compromised, a cross check would catch the anomaly and dump the old ID, to create a new one, that was synchronized across the internet automatically. The criminals couldn't do anything with the old information any more, so they couldn't impact the victim of the privacy breach.
And the government does not have to disclose if they get compromised.
I'm already paying with a debit card. If they can't mine that data for the relevant information, I see no reason to help them.
Several years ago, a K-mart cashier said she had no way to process my purchase without a phone number. Her manager agreed. Whether they were right or wrong, I haven't been back since.
Several years ago, a K-mart cashier said she had no way to process my purchase without a phone number. Her manager agreed. Whether they were right or wrong, I haven't been back since.
Was the inability K-Mart based or the card processor? I guess K-mart should have changed the policy as they are no longer around.
I suggested entering all '9's, all '0', the store number, but both clerk and manager rejected these ideas. It wasn't the card reader; I was verbally asked by the clerk, who was going to punch it into the cash register. If it actually was a programming requirement, then somebody had his head WAY up his sphincter.
K-Mart is still around (including the store I no longer patronize), but it's on its back and feebly kicking its legs in the air.
K-Mart is still around (including the store I no longer patronize), but it's on its back and feebly kicking its legs in the air.
I thought Sears and K-Mart did the merge thing. They all disappeared around here.
Occasionally you will see a surviving K-Mart in the heartland. It depends on the local market - and customers are loyal to them. I suspect the reason is that the local manager is a genius compared to the other local big lots that shrivel an die.
Sort of. One of our customers has equipment in K-Mart (and just about everywhere else, as well!). I have four or five in my territory.
Sort of the poor man's choice. You still find the standard K-Mart fare, but you can also buy Craftsman tools, Kenmore appliances, and other Sears brands there. You just don't have the selection you would at a full-on Sears store.
While the prices might be somewhat higher than at Walmart, the service is much better.
While the prices might be somewhat higher than at Walmart, the service is much better.
the K-Mart prices generally beat Walmart's. Wally World only lowers enough price points to get people into the store so they can bait and switch everyone. I hate going there, but they are typically the only supply source that actually stocks what I need. I always go to Target first, and it is almost always cheaper. Plus I can find EVERYTHING - unlike Wally World! I hate that place! 
There's no way to verify that its your REAL phone number, so just start rattling off some digits. Far easier than storming out of the store without your purchases.
Five three oh ni-i-ine 
Now I'll have bloody Tommy Tutone in my head until I get in the truck and fire up something normal, well...OTHER 80's tunes anyway.
OMG, it's started already, GET OUT OF MY HEAD! YOU DIDN'T MAKE TODAY'S, MENTAL PLAYLIST!!!
OMG, it's started already, GET OUT OF MY HEAD! YOU DIDN'T MAKE TODAY'S, MENTAL PLAYLIST!!!
If that phrase is good enough for K-Mart's competitors, it's good enough for K-Mart.
If you don't tell a business why you won't be returning, how will they know why they're losing customers? Radio Shack used to ask for this information, until enough customers complained and they stopped.
If you don't tell a business why you won't be returning, how will they know why they're losing customers? Radio Shack used to ask for this information, until enough customers complained and they stopped.
I know online it doesn't always work. They must be able to run the number real time to test it.
Easy to avoid with a $10 burner phone from Radio Shack, registered to an address that doesn't exist and paid for with cash.
My son worked for RS for years and they still ran a simple credit check, at least in the corporate store where he worked.
Too many other places I can shop without $10 overhead.
since I don't know what a 'burner' phone is. My not knowing wasn't relevant to my position on not spending money to meet a seller's requirements. They may have other uses that make them worth purchasing; K-mart ain't one of them.
In a marketing course I took for my MBA in 1989, I was told that marketing firms already had databases that could track shopping and other information down to the city block level. The difference now is that people have become more aware of this since the internet made a lot of public information easily accessible.
BTW, in the US now, many stores ask you to join their "membership" program so you can get discounts or other rewards. Every time you make a purchase or look at their web sites, they are combining that with the personal information you have to give them to become a "member". You don't have to use social media to be tracked.
BTW, in the US now, many stores ask you to join their "membership" program so you can get discounts or other rewards. Every time you make a purchase or look at their web sites, they are combining that with the personal information you have to give them to become a "member". You don't have to use social media to be tracked.
One of my favorite marketing tools, besides free music. You can track everything from loyalty rewards info. I've been marketing everything under the sun via every means possible for a few decades now. It's incredible what information is readily bought and sold for BIG money. Where I used to buy and sell contact info for about $1 per contact, I now collect, trade, buy and sell info that offers so much more and for upward of $10 per name. Completely legal, completely above board and only ever used for forthright purposes, but who knows what happens after that. I spend $35K on a bunch of contact info, mine the life out of it and resell it, with updated info. The next guy does the same and resells it etc. That's why Do Not Call lists really don't work, unless being bought through national directories by regulated marketing companies, where it is flagged as it is passed on.
What starts out as an old number with a contact name of someone that is now dead, in just a few short weeks it can become valuable corporate information, including annual sales figures, budgets, COE cell phone numbers etc. WEEKS, not years, is all it takes. A $1 phone number can be worth $50+ in no time. I've seen companies pay upward of $200 per web lead they get, from the right company with the right info. Telemarketers start filter out out dead people, closed businesses and NIS. The next company has an inside sales department that upgrades that basic data to include owners and managers, decision makers etc. The outside sales team at the next company upgrades the info to include financial data, C level employees etc. Eventually there's enough contact info available for it to be worth a few hundred bucks per contact to the right company.
And that's just a simple database, that could start with numbers collected at a trade show give away where people complete basic info on an entry form or a simple, free call list found online.
What starts out as an old number with a contact name of someone that is now dead, in just a few short weeks it can become valuable corporate information, including annual sales figures, budgets, COE cell phone numbers etc. WEEKS, not years, is all it takes. A $1 phone number can be worth $50+ in no time. I've seen companies pay upward of $200 per web lead they get, from the right company with the right info. Telemarketers start filter out out dead people, closed businesses and NIS. The next company has an inside sales department that upgrades that basic data to include owners and managers, decision makers etc. The outside sales team at the next company upgrades the info to include financial data, C level employees etc. Eventually there's enough contact info available for it to be worth a few hundred bucks per contact to the right company.
And that's just a simple database, that could start with numbers collected at a trade show give away where people complete basic info on an entry form or a simple, free call list found online.
I would be curious to learn more about the databases you buy and sell.
It's no big secret though, I was doing it in the 80's and 90's too. I bought and sold numbers before computing became mainstream,when sales offices worked from telephone books and business directories. It's no big secret, it's just marketing 101.
List start out rough and incomplete, they are great for call centres with auto-dialers. Once the NIS #'s are weeded out, the list is good for an inside sales team, but still has incomplete data, old employee names etc. After a good inside sales team has updated it, it's useful for B2B sales to upper management. Once THAT list is primed and tweaked it's good for C-Level sales and marketing needs. The data becomes more accurate and complete, the price goes up each time until it's an expensive and valued data collection.
List start out rough and incomplete, they are great for call centres with auto-dialers. Once the NIS #'s are weeded out, the list is good for an inside sales team, but still has incomplete data, old employee names etc. After a good inside sales team has updated it, it's useful for B2B sales to upper management. Once THAT list is primed and tweaked it's good for C-Level sales and marketing needs. The data becomes more accurate and complete, the price goes up each time until it's an expensive and valued data collection.
How would one learn about this? I'd like to do more research in this area.
A few marketing seminars I've spoken at had other speakers who touched on it but really it's just one of those things I learned over time, hands on. I'm sorry there isn't a book, course or seminar I can point you to, but I think it's been one of those things that is kept quiet. You can buy lists from all kinds of companies, there are tons of them, but as to the transformation of numbers into valued records, for me anyway, it just came from working in the industry and having people I bought and sold from, now I have a fair network of contacts where we share info among us based on value to the buyer.
Sorry, I don't mean to talk sideways like a politician but really, it started when I managed a large call centre. We'd buy THOUSDANDS of numbers, literally 40 thousand + every few weeks to a month. When our lists were worn out, I would sell them to another contact in a similar business but he also had a standard inside sales team for his day to day business. I then got in touch with one of HIS contacts when I was looking for a highly detailed list of B2B calls for an IT services campaign and B2B telephone system sales (when unified messaging and IP phones were new). From there it just turned into a network, we'd meet for beers etc as we all worked locally and then it branched out into US and foreign lists.
If there was a beginning and end I could point you to I would gladly do so but it's just one of those things I learned over time. I'm sure some idiot wrote a book, usually someone who didn't succeed but had the idea.
Sorry, I don't mean to talk sideways like a politician but really, it started when I managed a large call centre. We'd buy THOUSDANDS of numbers, literally 40 thousand + every few weeks to a month. When our lists were worn out, I would sell them to another contact in a similar business but he also had a standard inside sales team for his day to day business. I then got in touch with one of HIS contacts when I was looking for a highly detailed list of B2B calls for an IT services campaign and B2B telephone system sales (when unified messaging and IP phones were new). From there it just turned into a network, we'd meet for beers etc as we all worked locally and then it branched out into US and foreign lists.
If there was a beginning and end I could point you to I would gladly do so but it's just one of those things I learned over time. I'm sure some idiot wrote a book, usually someone who didn't succeed but had the idea.
Presumably if you gave the cashier a random answer they would be none the wiser. An obvious answer is "I can't remember" if you really want to avoid the issue. Paying with cash avoids the credit card link, and loyalty schemes are optional.
Of course if you're interested in playing the game right back at them only use your loyalty card when buying specific things, especially if they are things for other people. Before I got bored of playing games with corporate databases I had a loyalty card that would have shown a persona who only ever paid cash and who drank the finest malt whisky but ate the cheapest snacks money could buy.
Of course if you're interested in playing the game right back at them only use your loyalty card when buying specific things, especially if they are things for other people. Before I got bored of playing games with corporate databases I had a loyalty card that would have shown a persona who only ever paid cash and who drank the finest malt whisky but ate the cheapest snacks money could buy.
As I noted above, if you don't tell a business why you're leaving, how will they know what they're doing to displease you (and potentially their other customers)?
I wonder if we are the initial stages of change. I wonder if this time period like starting a simulation.
You can not judge how things will settle down. You have to throw away an initial
results until a sufficient number of transactions have been completed.
In this case we can not really know how age, and openness are impacting the
perception of on-line reputation. When generation Y members get
to the age of 65+, then will we really be able to learn something about these
factors. The current results probably say more about a culture in the
process of disruption/change than about an individual's perception of privacy..
You can not judge how things will settle down. You have to throw away an initial
results until a sufficient number of transactions have been completed.
In this case we can not really know how age, and openness are impacting the
perception of on-line reputation. When generation Y members get
to the age of 65+, then will we really be able to learn something about these
factors. The current results probably say more about a culture in the
process of disruption/change than about an individual's perception of privacy..
I agree on that - too bad this generation has not seen fit to err on the side of caution. However, in a way, a small town where everybody knows everyone else's business is a similar environment - the only problem is that in a small town, everyone gets to see who is walking into town, and observe the newcomer for trustworthiness. With the new privacy reality, wolves can sneak around in stealth mode and bypass this trust examination - so the small town argument for more open privacy fails in my estimation.
Would it be better to control your personal information or have someone else?
I relate an idea one of my clients came up with. This person is getting on the NIST public recommendation committee so I take it seriously.
The Millennials I interviewed all mentioned that they wanted to to have control of their information as it was made public. I remember when Facebook first came out, everyone mentioned that I need to get an account otherwise someone else will and it could be bad. So, maybe the Millennials have a point.
About software that tracks you through your use of social media:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence?CMP=twt_gu
This paragraph was telling:
"But the Massachusetts-based company has acknowledged the technology was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security system capable of analysing "trillions of entities" from cyberspace."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence?CMP=twt_gu
This paragraph was telling:
"But the Massachusetts-based company has acknowledged the technology was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security system capable of analysing "trillions of entities" from cyberspace."
Maybe older people don't have to delete unwanted comments about themselves or remove photo tags as much because they don't have to. Did this study also look at *how much* each of those age groups puts out there? Maybe the more mature users think more before they post and don't have friends that post pictures of them all at wild parties.
The fact that they were unaware of privacy policy changes is a big deal. I have done a great deal of research on how social media networks and other sites inform its members of changes to security and privacy policy. In more cases than not it is some blurb after the fourth drill down on their website. Facebook sending out the email was far from the norm. Yet, most did not know about the Facebook vote or recognize the importance.
that is about all anyone can see of my personal identity on FaceBook. I doubt it gives out much - especially since I look nothing like that now.
Facebook facial recognition software is quite spooky. A friend was recognized in a group photo of about 50 people. He then turned off tagging.
I'm a real fan of using that to authenticate - it seems that some of the developers of that technology have it down pat. I'm not sure how worried I am about it as it harks back to my old "small town" argument. However - the people/organizations that may abuse said technology are the worry - we will never see them or realize their impact until it's too late. Those forces are not assessed by my small town occupants, so we never get to look at their trustworthiness.
...that many of the seniors, less familiar with computers (to start with) and all that 'social media' entails, will ask their kids, 'What's this all about?' And the kids reply, 'Don't worry, it's nothing that involves you and you can ignore it.'
And to many of the millennials there is a separation of privacy related to social media and apps (not to worry - not even on the radar) and privacy as related to employers and the government (no, I'm not going to tell them ANYTHING! That's violating my privacy!!)
"It is almost assured what is released to the Internet is public knowledge forever. Why does this scare parents and older adults, but not Millennials?"
When you have 3,000 'friends,' and you spend your day releasing every aspect of your life to them .. it's back to that 'social media is different' and everything is ok. It's a learned behavior driven by peer pressure and mass marketing.
Remember that parents and older adults were brought up with (taught) the concept that everyone including themselves had a right to privacy and it's something that was to be respected. Now, millennial parents rush to sign up their 3-day old child with a Twitter account so that child will '...have an Internet presence as soon as possible.' The tweets must be fascinating, as penned by Dad: I slept. I ate. I pooped. I cried.
And to many of the millennials there is a separation of privacy related to social media and apps (not to worry - not even on the radar) and privacy as related to employers and the government (no, I'm not going to tell them ANYTHING! That's violating my privacy!!)
"It is almost assured what is released to the Internet is public knowledge forever. Why does this scare parents and older adults, but not Millennials?"
When you have 3,000 'friends,' and you spend your day releasing every aspect of your life to them .. it's back to that 'social media is different' and everything is ok. It's a learned behavior driven by peer pressure and mass marketing.
Remember that parents and older adults were brought up with (taught) the concept that everyone including themselves had a right to privacy and it's something that was to be respected. Now, millennial parents rush to sign up their 3-day old child with a Twitter account so that child will '...have an Internet presence as soon as possible.' The tweets must be fascinating, as penned by Dad: I slept. I ate. I pooped. I cried.
Your comments are thought-provoking and do make a great deal of sense.
Interesting data, but I agree that older people use the internet less and for different purposes, so it might be less necessary for some of them to worry about privacy.
"of the 700,000 who did vote, 88 percent cast their vote against the new changes" "so Facebook rescinded the ability to vote."
Facebook members have always had the ability to vote on any policy change. Facebook wanted to remove that ability from the users as it was not being used by the members. In order to do that, Facebook had to take a vote. The 700000 who voted did not make the required quorum, so Facebook removed the member's ability to vote on policy changes.
Those millions who chose to not exercise the ability to vote indicated that the majority of the membership isn't interested in influencing FB's management.
I found of those who I asked, most older adults did not know what I was talking about. I then explained and most said they would have voted to keep the ability to vote. I did not go into if they missed the email, did not receive it, or they chose to ignore it.
When I tried to share the news, FaceBook blocked my public share. I don't think they really wanted anyone to really know what was going on, despite the fact that I did receive an email about the event. I had to post outside news information to get it on my timeline.
I was pretty sure that a majority of members would not participate, and that I was probably wasting my time, but I did it anyway. I was pretty sure Zuckerberg was relying on mass apathy to win the day for him.
I was pretty sure that a majority of members would not participate, and that I was probably wasting my time, but I did it anyway. I was pretty sure Zuckerberg was relying on mass apathy to win the day for him.
Also, Facebook has in the past mentioned every time there was a vote the turnout was too low to meet the quorum.
at that news, the way they handled it - after all they sure didn't "advertise" it, like they advertise their products. They would probably view that as self induced financial suicide. I disagree with them on that, but you can't fight a revenue policy wonk, especially in front of the board of directors, or any other stake holder, for that matter.
I know of organizations that never gave members a voting choice, or notified them of changes other than an obscure page on their website. I am not a Facebook fan, just was surprised that they communicate with members better than most.
but I always wondered if it was the Netflix debacle that motivated them. Netflix is finally pulling out of a LONG slump after that! 
They've since learned to listen to their customers as well!
They've since learned to listen to their customers as well!
As you have stated, Michael, the definition of privacy is important for understanding your questions.
What exactly is meant by "being more aware of how to control their online reputations"?
More aware in what sense? Being able to add and delete comments on social media pages?
What is an "online reputation"? Is it the ability of "others" to form opinions about the exposed person? Or is it more?
How might an online reputation affect a young person directly and indirectly? How might that reputation affect the same person some years later?
Do young people have enough life experience to be aware of major and minor consequences (short-term and long-term) of an acquired online reputation?
In my opinion, the older we get, and therefore the more experience we acquire, the more possibilities we are able to imagine regarding the nice or nefarious uses of information, especially deeply personal information.
The Internet social networks are just a small part of the information that is collected, as many have said or alluded to in this discussion. I'm a little nervous about that.
What exactly is meant by "being more aware of how to control their online reputations"?
More aware in what sense? Being able to add and delete comments on social media pages?
What is an "online reputation"? Is it the ability of "others" to form opinions about the exposed person? Or is it more?
How might an online reputation affect a young person directly and indirectly? How might that reputation affect the same person some years later?
Do young people have enough life experience to be aware of major and minor consequences (short-term and long-term) of an acquired online reputation?
In my opinion, the older we get, and therefore the more experience we acquire, the more possibilities we are able to imagine regarding the nice or nefarious uses of information, especially deeply personal information.
The Internet social networks are just a small part of the information that is collected, as many have said or alluded to in this discussion. I'm a little nervous about that.
I appreciated your comment deeply. I found this quote:
"In my opinion, the older we get, and therefore the more experience we acquire, the more possibilities we are able to imagine regarding the nice or nefarious uses of information, especially deeply personal information."
Accurate in my opinion as one who subscribes to the axiom that better decisions come from having more information to base the decision on.
"In my opinion, the older we get, and therefore the more experience we acquire, the more possibilities we are able to imagine regarding the nice or nefarious uses of information, especially deeply personal information."
Accurate in my opinion as one who subscribes to the axiom that better decisions come from having more information to base the decision on.
...the fad of "generational differences" is the worst kind of pseudoscience. To say it is poorly reseached is to imply it is researched at all. It relies on accepting the sorts of pop-culture stereotypes normally found in Parade magazine, and making sweeping assertions based on anecdotes and stereotypes.
Here's a typical example: "...not only do members of Generation Y look different, with their body piercings, tattoos, and electronic decorations, they behave and think differently as well." Really? All of them? Most of them? What percentage? Is there a difference if you only have piercings and "electronic decorations," and didn't go for a tattoo? What about those that have none of these? (Do the thinking and behaviors rub off onto them?) These are just a few examples of the kind of questions that actual researchers would ask, and them from there begin to draw conclusions.
The "generational differences" field does the opposite - it begins with the assumption that the premise is correct, and interprets anecdotes and polls to support it.
It makes tenuous connections for which there is little evidentiary support. I read one typical example which purported that the generation who watched "Damien" at the movies learned to distrust children, while the generation that saw "Look Who's Talking" were supposed to have a strong affinity for children. Again, what percentage saw these movies? What were their attitudes before seeing the movie? How many reported a change in attitude afterward? What about those who didn't see the movie - what are their attitudes? (Does it just rub off?) If the premise even made enough sense to bother researching - which it doesn't - where's the actual research leading to such conclusions? Across the field, it largely does not exist.
To further illustrate the point, consider the "boomers": Which set of "generational" values characterizes the "boomers": protesting racial discrimination at lunch counters, or beating up the protesters? Are Democrats or Tea Partiers the real "boomers"? Bill Clinton or George Bush? Barak Obama or John Boehner?
Yet, read the stereotypes applied to boomers by a writer in this "field": extremely hard working; motivated by position, perks and prestige; relish long work weeks; define themselves by professional accomplishment; workaholic generation; confident, independent, and self-reliant; will not hesitate to challenge established practices; goal-oriented; dedicated and career-focused; equate work and position with self-worth; clever, resourceful and strive to win; believe in hierarchal structure and "rankism;" hard time adjusting to workplace flexibility trends; fault younger generations for working remotely. This may be a valid description of some individuals in any generation - but an accurate characterization of an entire generation, and one on which we should base HR practices in the workplace?
Five minutes of reflective thought on descriptions such as these shows the shallowness and valuelessness of this "field." An actual and more accurate study might look at how, DESPITE shared generational experience, people have quite different and often opposing values in many areas of life, because there are so many other factors that play a much more important role in determining those than the accident of the time in which you are born.
I know this silliness is very much in vogue, but it is without foundation. The idea that HR departments are going to make any personnel management decisions based on these stereotypes is disturbing. The pretense to representing important insights for managing the "multi-generational work place" serves only to give the appearance of legitimacy to prejudices and pigeon-holing. It is astrology without the stars. One day, it will join phrenology and palmistry on that long list of obvious nonsense that even "thinking" human beings swallow without a critical second thought.
Here's a typical example: "...not only do members of Generation Y look different, with their body piercings, tattoos, and electronic decorations, they behave and think differently as well." Really? All of them? Most of them? What percentage? Is there a difference if you only have piercings and "electronic decorations," and didn't go for a tattoo? What about those that have none of these? (Do the thinking and behaviors rub off onto them?) These are just a few examples of the kind of questions that actual researchers would ask, and them from there begin to draw conclusions.
The "generational differences" field does the opposite - it begins with the assumption that the premise is correct, and interprets anecdotes and polls to support it.
It makes tenuous connections for which there is little evidentiary support. I read one typical example which purported that the generation who watched "Damien" at the movies learned to distrust children, while the generation that saw "Look Who's Talking" were supposed to have a strong affinity for children. Again, what percentage saw these movies? What were their attitudes before seeing the movie? How many reported a change in attitude afterward? What about those who didn't see the movie - what are their attitudes? (Does it just rub off?) If the premise even made enough sense to bother researching - which it doesn't - where's the actual research leading to such conclusions? Across the field, it largely does not exist.
To further illustrate the point, consider the "boomers": Which set of "generational" values characterizes the "boomers": protesting racial discrimination at lunch counters, or beating up the protesters? Are Democrats or Tea Partiers the real "boomers"? Bill Clinton or George Bush? Barak Obama or John Boehner?
Yet, read the stereotypes applied to boomers by a writer in this "field": extremely hard working; motivated by position, perks and prestige; relish long work weeks; define themselves by professional accomplishment; workaholic generation; confident, independent, and self-reliant; will not hesitate to challenge established practices; goal-oriented; dedicated and career-focused; equate work and position with self-worth; clever, resourceful and strive to win; believe in hierarchal structure and "rankism;" hard time adjusting to workplace flexibility trends; fault younger generations for working remotely. This may be a valid description of some individuals in any generation - but an accurate characterization of an entire generation, and one on which we should base HR practices in the workplace?
Five minutes of reflective thought on descriptions such as these shows the shallowness and valuelessness of this "field." An actual and more accurate study might look at how, DESPITE shared generational experience, people have quite different and often opposing values in many areas of life, because there are so many other factors that play a much more important role in determining those than the accident of the time in which you are born.
I know this silliness is very much in vogue, but it is without foundation. The idea that HR departments are going to make any personnel management decisions based on these stereotypes is disturbing. The pretense to representing important insights for managing the "multi-generational work place" serves only to give the appearance of legitimacy to prejudices and pigeon-holing. It is astrology without the stars. One day, it will join phrenology and palmistry on that long list of obvious nonsense that even "thinking" human beings swallow without a critical second thought.
In the scheme of things, where would you place the Pew report?
The Pew report, and the poll from which they interpreted responses, is a textbook example of what I'm saying. The executive summary opens with a typical statement: "Generations, like people, have personalities, and Millennials...have begun to forge theirs: confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change.
The idea that generations have a single identifiable personality is an assertion, nothing more. The notion that millennials are "confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change" is sweepingly broad, vague, and even as shorthand, at best describes only a certain demographic of the generation.
What is more, when one reads the statistics offered in the body of the summary about "millennials," it's apparent with every example that there are large percentages (sometimes the majority) whose responses don't fit the stereotype presented at the beginning of the report summary, or the stereotypes and conclusions being presented in the paragraphs. Nevertheless, those conclusions are drawn.
For example, the summary says that 40% have a tattoo. Why isn't the 60% who don't have a tattoo identified as setting the generation's "personality"? Nearly 25% have a piercing somewhere besides the earlobe. In other words, 75% do not. This type of analysis is repeated again and again not just in the summary: it's fair to say this is typical of the approach used throughout this field. The claim that attributes like these define the generation is mainly a result of interpreting the data to fit the premise and expected conclusions. It certainly doesn't come from the numbers!
The report summary later defines the generational cohorts, in case readers are not familiar with them. Here is one example: "Xers are often depicted as savvy, entrepreneurial loners." That is the entirety of the description. I'm not sure what the slang "savvy" is supposed to indicate, but it comes as news to me (and likely to them) that all or even most Xers are entrepreneurial loners.
The summary claims that the name "Silent generation" makes for "a nice contrast with the noisy ways of the anti-establishment Boomers." In reality, the anti-establishment boomers were always a minority of that generation. Much of the generation disagreed with the anti-establishment folks, and now make up a significant part of the Republican/Tea party that stands in open opposition to the very liberal values they are supposed - as generational cohorts - to share.
It is arguable that many of the behaviors being labeled generational attributes of the Millennials (and Gen-Xers before that) have more to do with age, maturity, and level of family/social obligation at this time of life. Millennials have tattoos and piercings. Among the Boomers, many wore jeans, sandals, and let their hair grow long. In modern societies, many young people follow the various pop trends of the day. That some Millennials also do this is hardly something that distinguishes the generation. They're acting like kids.
Many of the attitudes that younger people have with regard to work ethic, commitment, professional achievement, self-image, etc., are common among modern young people of any generation. What they self-report as their attitudes and values now are likely to change as they get older, get more settled in a career or job path, get married and have family responsibilities, and so forth. Again, the evidence, such as it is, doesn't necessarily or even logically lead to the conclusion that the attitudes attributed are distinctive traits of the Millennial generation, especially given that the statistics over and over again show that significant percentages of the cohorts - sometimes the majority - don't fit the generation's supposed personality. Again, conclusion drives interpretation.
(The report summary says, "When it comes to each of these traits - work ethic, moral values, respect for others - young adults agree that older adults have the better of it." Duh. That's part of what comes with maturity, at least for people who mature! A generational characteristic of Millennials? The data certainly doesn't lead inexorably - or even strongly - to that conclusion.)
The statistics themselves are the result of a 14-question "scientific" telephone poll with some follow-up questions added. The poll is a good example of how the questions (or more accurately, the limited available answers) are led by the assumptions and the expected conclusions. In addition, a 14-question self-reporting poll limited to two or three pre-selected answers is not research, and especially not scientific research.
These are just a few examples of the issues I have with this field. It assumes that its stereotypes are valid, and so interprets the data in a manner that re-enforces them. The premise drives the interpretation of the data, and always has in this field. Other interpretations of that data are easily made, and when additional data is added to provide a fuller picture, the weakness of the generational interpretations becomes all the more clear. As I said in my previous post - one can more accurately interpret the information put forth by the generational advocates to instead say that DESPITE shared generational experiences, people tend to very diverse work ethics, political and moral values, etc., because any number of other factors are more important players in developing those values and attitudes than can be attributed to the year a person is born.
I am not saying that when one is born has no influence on these things. I am saying that the research and interpretations put forth by the generational advocates are weak, often unsupportable and easily contradicted, and results mainly in poorly-defined stereotypes that elevate a certain pop-culture demographic to the role of defining a generation. I'm saying that questionable interpretations of weak data leads to bad analysis and invalid conclusions.
So, why does it bother me so much? One problem with this is that the stereotypes are insulting. I was introduced to this field when I started teaching as an adjunct professor, and was required to attend a generational training class. Several attendees were personally angered and insulted by the stereotypes being applied to them particularly since at that time, Gen-Xers were being characterized as selfish and money-grubbing. (Now they are "entrepreneurial loners," which is a nicer way of saying the same thing.) Subsequent sessions of this training that I attended (in other work situations) have had the same outcome of serving to insult the participants who didn't care for how they were being characterized. (For example, just think of how loaded the characterization of "liberal" is for about half the American population, and you can see just one of many reasons why many boomers and millennials might be offended).
Even more important, however, is that corporate HR departments and other entities are developing personnel policies and conducting training based on weak, uncertain, poorly researched assertions about how to deal in the workplace with people, depending on which cohort stereotype they are said to belong to. Here are some typical suggestions for dealing with Millennials in the workplace:
"Listen to the millennial employee. Your millennial employees are used to loving parents who have scheduled their lives around the activities and events of their children. These young adults have ideas and opinions, and don't take kindly to having their thoughts ignored. After all, they had the best listening, most child-centric audience in history." (How does this description square with the high divorce rate that is supposed to characterize the Millennials family experience?) Is this type of upbringing such a universal experience (and Millennials so clearly spoiled) that they are going to act like petulant children unless catered to? Is this sound advice for an HR department to dispense to department managers?
"Millennial employees are up for a challenge and change. Boring is bad. They seek ever-changing tasks within their work. Whats happening next is their mantra. Dont bore them, ignore them, or trivialize their contribution." Right. All millennials feel this way, since all millennials by virtue of their upbringing feel entitled to expect more than day-to-day repetitive boredom in their professional lives - and they want it right now!. Of course, many - even possibly most - jobs dont have the luxury of ever-changing tasks, particularly those avaiable to teenagers and young adults. Perhaps the advice to those firms is that they just shouldnt hire Millennials.
"Millennial employees are multi-taskers on a scale youve never seen before. Multiple tasks don't phase them. Talk on the phone while doing email and answering multiple instant messages yes! This is a way of life. In fact, without many different tasks and goals to pursue within the week, the millennials will likely experience boredom." Actual studies have shown that successful multi-tasking is a myth, and that multi-tasking tends to less satisfactory results across all the tasks involved because the human mind doesn't work well that way. Some of the kids polled may self-report that multi-tasking is a way of life for them, but the reality is that as human beings, they are no better at it than anyone else.
"[Millennials] work hard, but they are not into the sixty hour work weeks defined by the Baby Boomers." I guess I should be ashamed that as a boomer and a professional, I'm not familiar with the 60-hour work week. Some boomers may work that long, but a defining characteristic of a generation? Nonsense on the face of it. Many service jobs, particularly in big box chains, grocery stores, etc., don't allow employees to work even enough part-time hours to qualify for partial benefits, much less an additional half-week every week at time and a half. Sixty hour weeks for hourly workers? Not typically. You have to be a salaried professional and at a certain level in your career before the 60-hour week becomes any sort of norm. As I said - add data, and the stereotypes, already weak, start to fall apart completely.
"Home, family, spending time with the children and families, are priorities [for millennials]. Dont lose sight of this. Balance and multiple activities are important to these millennial employees. Ignore this to your peril." As a boomer, I guess these things have been deeply researched and shown not to be important to me, so the HR department doesnt need to worry about me on that score. I apparently want to work a 60 hour week, and I get my knickers in a twist when 20-somethings dont want to do the same. (The report summary, by the way, says that 17% of boomers identified work ethic as one of the top five attributes that make our generation unique. Is it really that central to the Boomer identity?)
If there is anything of value to be found in this field, it needs to take a serious look at its assumptions, premises, research methods, interpretations and analysis, and conclusions. Right now, however widely accepted, it's a house of cards.
The idea that generations have a single identifiable personality is an assertion, nothing more. The notion that millennials are "confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change" is sweepingly broad, vague, and even as shorthand, at best describes only a certain demographic of the generation.
What is more, when one reads the statistics offered in the body of the summary about "millennials," it's apparent with every example that there are large percentages (sometimes the majority) whose responses don't fit the stereotype presented at the beginning of the report summary, or the stereotypes and conclusions being presented in the paragraphs. Nevertheless, those conclusions are drawn.
For example, the summary says that 40% have a tattoo. Why isn't the 60% who don't have a tattoo identified as setting the generation's "personality"? Nearly 25% have a piercing somewhere besides the earlobe. In other words, 75% do not. This type of analysis is repeated again and again not just in the summary: it's fair to say this is typical of the approach used throughout this field. The claim that attributes like these define the generation is mainly a result of interpreting the data to fit the premise and expected conclusions. It certainly doesn't come from the numbers!
The report summary later defines the generational cohorts, in case readers are not familiar with them. Here is one example: "Xers are often depicted as savvy, entrepreneurial loners." That is the entirety of the description. I'm not sure what the slang "savvy" is supposed to indicate, but it comes as news to me (and likely to them) that all or even most Xers are entrepreneurial loners.
The summary claims that the name "Silent generation" makes for "a nice contrast with the noisy ways of the anti-establishment Boomers." In reality, the anti-establishment boomers were always a minority of that generation. Much of the generation disagreed with the anti-establishment folks, and now make up a significant part of the Republican/Tea party that stands in open opposition to the very liberal values they are supposed - as generational cohorts - to share.
It is arguable that many of the behaviors being labeled generational attributes of the Millennials (and Gen-Xers before that) have more to do with age, maturity, and level of family/social obligation at this time of life. Millennials have tattoos and piercings. Among the Boomers, many wore jeans, sandals, and let their hair grow long. In modern societies, many young people follow the various pop trends of the day. That some Millennials also do this is hardly something that distinguishes the generation. They're acting like kids.
Many of the attitudes that younger people have with regard to work ethic, commitment, professional achievement, self-image, etc., are common among modern young people of any generation. What they self-report as their attitudes and values now are likely to change as they get older, get more settled in a career or job path, get married and have family responsibilities, and so forth. Again, the evidence, such as it is, doesn't necessarily or even logically lead to the conclusion that the attitudes attributed are distinctive traits of the Millennial generation, especially given that the statistics over and over again show that significant percentages of the cohorts - sometimes the majority - don't fit the generation's supposed personality. Again, conclusion drives interpretation.
(The report summary says, "When it comes to each of these traits - work ethic, moral values, respect for others - young adults agree that older adults have the better of it." Duh. That's part of what comes with maturity, at least for people who mature! A generational characteristic of Millennials? The data certainly doesn't lead inexorably - or even strongly - to that conclusion.)
The statistics themselves are the result of a 14-question "scientific" telephone poll with some follow-up questions added. The poll is a good example of how the questions (or more accurately, the limited available answers) are led by the assumptions and the expected conclusions. In addition, a 14-question self-reporting poll limited to two or three pre-selected answers is not research, and especially not scientific research.
These are just a few examples of the issues I have with this field. It assumes that its stereotypes are valid, and so interprets the data in a manner that re-enforces them. The premise drives the interpretation of the data, and always has in this field. Other interpretations of that data are easily made, and when additional data is added to provide a fuller picture, the weakness of the generational interpretations becomes all the more clear. As I said in my previous post - one can more accurately interpret the information put forth by the generational advocates to instead say that DESPITE shared generational experiences, people tend to very diverse work ethics, political and moral values, etc., because any number of other factors are more important players in developing those values and attitudes than can be attributed to the year a person is born.
I am not saying that when one is born has no influence on these things. I am saying that the research and interpretations put forth by the generational advocates are weak, often unsupportable and easily contradicted, and results mainly in poorly-defined stereotypes that elevate a certain pop-culture demographic to the role of defining a generation. I'm saying that questionable interpretations of weak data leads to bad analysis and invalid conclusions.
So, why does it bother me so much? One problem with this is that the stereotypes are insulting. I was introduced to this field when I started teaching as an adjunct professor, and was required to attend a generational training class. Several attendees were personally angered and insulted by the stereotypes being applied to them particularly since at that time, Gen-Xers were being characterized as selfish and money-grubbing. (Now they are "entrepreneurial loners," which is a nicer way of saying the same thing.) Subsequent sessions of this training that I attended (in other work situations) have had the same outcome of serving to insult the participants who didn't care for how they were being characterized. (For example, just think of how loaded the characterization of "liberal" is for about half the American population, and you can see just one of many reasons why many boomers and millennials might be offended).
Even more important, however, is that corporate HR departments and other entities are developing personnel policies and conducting training based on weak, uncertain, poorly researched assertions about how to deal in the workplace with people, depending on which cohort stereotype they are said to belong to. Here are some typical suggestions for dealing with Millennials in the workplace:
"Listen to the millennial employee. Your millennial employees are used to loving parents who have scheduled their lives around the activities and events of their children. These young adults have ideas and opinions, and don't take kindly to having their thoughts ignored. After all, they had the best listening, most child-centric audience in history." (How does this description square with the high divorce rate that is supposed to characterize the Millennials family experience?) Is this type of upbringing such a universal experience (and Millennials so clearly spoiled) that they are going to act like petulant children unless catered to? Is this sound advice for an HR department to dispense to department managers?
"Millennial employees are up for a challenge and change. Boring is bad. They seek ever-changing tasks within their work. Whats happening next is their mantra. Dont bore them, ignore them, or trivialize their contribution." Right. All millennials feel this way, since all millennials by virtue of their upbringing feel entitled to expect more than day-to-day repetitive boredom in their professional lives - and they want it right now!. Of course, many - even possibly most - jobs dont have the luxury of ever-changing tasks, particularly those avaiable to teenagers and young adults. Perhaps the advice to those firms is that they just shouldnt hire Millennials.
"Millennial employees are multi-taskers on a scale youve never seen before. Multiple tasks don't phase them. Talk on the phone while doing email and answering multiple instant messages yes! This is a way of life. In fact, without many different tasks and goals to pursue within the week, the millennials will likely experience boredom." Actual studies have shown that successful multi-tasking is a myth, and that multi-tasking tends to less satisfactory results across all the tasks involved because the human mind doesn't work well that way. Some of the kids polled may self-report that multi-tasking is a way of life for them, but the reality is that as human beings, they are no better at it than anyone else.
"[Millennials] work hard, but they are not into the sixty hour work weeks defined by the Baby Boomers." I guess I should be ashamed that as a boomer and a professional, I'm not familiar with the 60-hour work week. Some boomers may work that long, but a defining characteristic of a generation? Nonsense on the face of it. Many service jobs, particularly in big box chains, grocery stores, etc., don't allow employees to work even enough part-time hours to qualify for partial benefits, much less an additional half-week every week at time and a half. Sixty hour weeks for hourly workers? Not typically. You have to be a salaried professional and at a certain level in your career before the 60-hour week becomes any sort of norm. As I said - add data, and the stereotypes, already weak, start to fall apart completely.
"Home, family, spending time with the children and families, are priorities [for millennials]. Dont lose sight of this. Balance and multiple activities are important to these millennial employees. Ignore this to your peril." As a boomer, I guess these things have been deeply researched and shown not to be important to me, so the HR department doesnt need to worry about me on that score. I apparently want to work a 60 hour week, and I get my knickers in a twist when 20-somethings dont want to do the same. (The report summary, by the way, says that 17% of boomers identified work ethic as one of the top five attributes that make our generation unique. Is it really that central to the Boomer identity?)
If there is anything of value to be found in this field, it needs to take a serious look at its assumptions, premises, research methods, interpretations and analysis, and conclusions. Right now, however widely accepted, it's a house of cards.
I see where you are coming from and your points are hard to argue. I will have to go back and reread the report with a new set of eyes.
It's obvious that you're in Generation Y because the biggest problem people within OUR (Y) generation has is not having the ability to differentiate. When there is a issue within a group of people or a generation of people, you can say Gen Y or this particular group of people has an issue, if it seems that most within that generation or group of people have the same common problem. Saying Generation Y doesn't understand cyber security is correct. You see stories everyday of young people posting stupid nonesense such as teenage girls posting topless photos of themselves, teen males texting their privates to their girlfriends, cyber bullying that is out of control and most of these cases are coming from within our generation. If a few individuals of other generations do the same, it's far in between.I know you seen people post their emails everywhere when their on forums like these and when they try to log into their emails, they can't and wonder why. Most who do this are in Generation Y and anyone with a mind understands that not all have this issue. Why do people have to say not all or some? If his writer wanted to say ALL Generation Y doesn't know about securing yourself online, then I can see why you would type an essay because I too would take offense but guess what? He didn't say all of us did he? A lot of people within our generation are careless about not just what they do online but how they treat people, the things that comes out their mouths; WE don't think. It's a huge issue that Generation Y has so what's the problem in stating those issues? You, that's the problem. People have to worry about people like you getting offended, trying to find controversy when there is none. Your essay was pointless because you added nothing to the discussion on how we can educate users, only more confusion.
All you did was move away from the issue to a pointless discussion that has nothing to do with anything other than you can't reason. Typical of my generation to take offense when there is none that should have been taken. The problems that could have been solved will presits because we can't have a discussion without people wanting to take something so simple as making young people aware of what they do online to something that won't benefit no one but the ego of the one who can't understand a general issue.
Now, we were talking about people protecting themselves online and you turned this into one big show out of nothing. You had no insights, just lack of being able to see a problem for what is it.
All you did was move away from the issue to a pointless discussion that has nothing to do with anything other than you can't reason. Typical of my generation to take offense when there is none that should have been taken. The problems that could have been solved will presits because we can't have a discussion without people wanting to take something so simple as making young people aware of what they do online to something that won't benefit no one but the ego of the one who can't understand a general issue.
Now, we were talking about people protecting themselves online and you turned this into one big show out of nothing. You had no insights, just lack of being able to see a problem for what is it.
I know people in generation Y who post every detail of their lives on facebook. But I also see the same behaviour from some people in the older and younger generations. And I know people in generation Y, myself included, who avoid facebook or are extremely careful about what they post on it and who sees it. All that is anecdotal of course but the only statistics I see here show generation Y values their privacy more.
You bring up the dichotomy that I am finding. There is a distinct difference in defining privacy between generations. It is almost as if Gen-Y is more concerned about privacy because they post more about themselves. I know that sounds odd, but it is the only way I can explain what I am finding in my research.
Andrew, you may find this article interesting:
http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/
If you have the time, I would love to learn what you thought about it.
Andrew, you may find this article interesting:
http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/
If you have the time, I would love to learn what you thought about it.
Wow! I read the article, Michael. I said wow because I'm significantly older than the folks in that article, and I am a very "private" person. I do not easily share opinions, not even firmly-held opinions. Even writing here at TechRepublic is a bit "way out in the open" for me.
I do see the viewpoint of young people who never knew the limited and private life before computers and even before television. For me, though, I am still not comfortable with sharing personal thoughts with people that I do not know well. I do share from time to time, but not often with much comfort, emotionally.
To a great extent, I admire the ability to be exposed without being uncomfortable. But that is easier for me to describe than to do.
Your article on privacy has been significantly expanded in this conversation list. It is interesting, but as before (for me), a bit uncomfortable.
Thanks for starting this.
I do see the viewpoint of young people who never knew the limited and private life before computers and even before television. For me, though, I am still not comfortable with sharing personal thoughts with people that I do not know well. I do share from time to time, but not often with much comfort, emotionally.
To a great extent, I admire the ability to be exposed without being uncomfortable. But that is easier for me to describe than to do.
Your article on privacy has been significantly expanded in this conversation list. It is interesting, but as before (for me), a bit uncomfortable.
Thanks for starting this.
It has been a wonderful process of discovery for me -- your comments in particular. I am beginning to see that even a little bit more of life's experienced may influence one's view of privacy.
Imho the more people realise how powerfull computers have become and how good the programs are in gathering informatio (e.g. Facebook and Google) the more carefull they become in placing privacy sensitive data on the net. The younger ppl have grown up used to the idea of the omnipresent internet, the older ppl (like me) have seen computers grow more and more powerfull each year. (Moore's law)
And perhaps in this forum we have more knowledge about the power of computers, databases and data mining than the average person. Which makes us realise all the more the (possible) impact of sharing personal information in the internet.
And perhaps in this forum we have more knowledge about the power of computers, databases and data mining than the average person. Which makes us realise all the more the (possible) impact of sharing personal information in the internet.
The older adults with interest in IT will have a different outlook than those just wanting to use computers to accomplish something else -- kind of like me and driving my car.
I've often thought about joining up to something like twitface just as a means of keeping in contact with friends scattered throughout the world. Then I look at my wife's feed and see that probably 80% of it is just drivel, 15% of it is endless "funny" pictures (most of which aren't all that funny) and 5% of it is interesting news that I'd want to see. So now my approach to online privacy is that I don't have a twitface account at all.
From what anecdotal evidence I have (which is limited, and as we all know anecdotes aren't the same as data) it seems the uploading of enough personal data to cause unexpected problems isn't just an issue with younger people. A lady whose blog I follow posted one snippet of information which struck me as odd, and from that and other things she'd posted I was able to determine her real name, her husband's name, and her home address within 5 minutes on Google. As the article says the information is out there and even if it is deleted will still live on in Google caches etc.
So between the endless drivel and the way a single ill-considered comment could broadcast to the world where I live (and equally broadcast to the world that I'm not home), it's easier just to avoid it.
As for most of the content I'm "missing out" on, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, "never in the history of human communication have so many people with so little to say said so much".
From what anecdotal evidence I have (which is limited, and as we all know anecdotes aren't the same as data) it seems the uploading of enough personal data to cause unexpected problems isn't just an issue with younger people. A lady whose blog I follow posted one snippet of information which struck me as odd, and from that and other things she'd posted I was able to determine her real name, her husband's name, and her home address within 5 minutes on Google. As the article says the information is out there and even if it is deleted will still live on in Google caches etc.
So between the endless drivel and the way a single ill-considered comment could broadcast to the world where I live (and equally broadcast to the world that I'm not home), it's easier just to avoid it.
As for most of the content I'm "missing out" on, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, "never in the history of human communication have so many people with so little to say said so much".
In Canada, Facebook has been in front of the courts numerous times for privacy issues that are okay in the US and some other countries but not most. They were given a list of issues to fix and did come through with some but not all. The Supreme Court basically said they weren't joking and would shut down Canadian access if they didn't comply, I think they have finally met most demands though I think they still have time for others.
It was mainly issues related to not being able to opt in or out of info being shared with partner sites, which is a no no here. Hopefully these settings are now available for all users, not just Canadians, so you can see what is being shared with whom and decide for yourself whether you wish to allow if disallow it.
As for reading the wife's page, everyone has the ability to control what is posted to their page, what updates they see etc. If you don't want to know when someone has posted a picture of a cat doing something amusingly stupid, you don't have to see it. If you don't want to know every time a friends takes a dump and names it, you don't have to.
You can set it up so you don't get any updates on other people at all, but can still view their pages and profile as a friend if you want to see what they have been up to.
You do get pretty good control over what is displayed on your own Facebook page, what is shared with others, who can see your page and info/updates etc.
It's up to you what you tell people about yourself, other people just think their lives are so interesting and that, because its a big Internet site, Facebook wouldn't do anything harmful. Let them know what little they do, you can still lock down your page and only share what you want to.
It was mainly issues related to not being able to opt in or out of info being shared with partner sites, which is a no no here. Hopefully these settings are now available for all users, not just Canadians, so you can see what is being shared with whom and decide for yourself whether you wish to allow if disallow it.
As for reading the wife's page, everyone has the ability to control what is posted to their page, what updates they see etc. If you don't want to know when someone has posted a picture of a cat doing something amusingly stupid, you don't have to see it. If you don't want to know every time a friends takes a dump and names it, you don't have to.
You can set it up so you don't get any updates on other people at all, but can still view their pages and profile as a friend if you want to see what they have been up to.
You do get pretty good control over what is displayed on your own Facebook page, what is shared with others, who can see your page and info/updates etc.
It's up to you what you tell people about yourself, other people just think their lives are so interesting and that, because its a big Internet site, Facebook wouldn't do anything harmful. Let them know what little they do, you can still lock down your page and only share what you want to.
I don't believe the Millenials care less about their security, its more about the knowledge and time to investigate the products and how to turn off or on the privacy rules they want to apply to the product.
It doesn't help when all vendors of social media sites use different terminology or even use the same terminology to mean different things, and hide the configuration menu(s) from the user. This is true for Web Browsers as well and the help files are vague at best if not downright confusing and often written in legalese.
It doesn't help when all vendors of social media sites use different terminology or even use the same terminology to mean different things, and hide the configuration menu(s) from the user. This is true for Web Browsers as well and the help files are vague at best if not downright confusing and often written in legalese.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
