Custom Search
Showing posts with label Social Networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Networking. Show all posts

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Mark Zuckerberg Unveils New Facebook Redesign On "60 Minutes"




















Mark Zuckerberg & Facebook: What's Next?


If you have a Facebook account, you've probably reconnected with an old pal, shared photos with your family, and gotten advice from your friends on what to buy and what to read. It's pretty likely you logged on today.

Lately, the social networking site has been introducing new products - one after the next - with the goal, it seems, of turning the entire Web into one big social network, so eventually the Internet will be Facebook.

As if the company wasn't surging enough, the movie "The Social Network" about the creation of Facebook has heightened interest, especially in its 26-yr-old CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

Now Facebook is about to get a facelift, and agreed to launch its new look on "60 Minutes."

Correspondent Lesley Stahl went out to Palo Alto, Calif. and sat down with Zuckerberg to discuss his creation, which is used today by a whopping 500 million people in 70 languages all around the world.

"When you first thought about this, 19 years old, is this what you had in mind? Did you see this far into the future? Or is it way beyond what you dreamed?" Stahl asked.

"Well, it's funny. When I was getting started, with my roommates in college, you never think that you could build this company or anything like that, right? Because, I mean, we were college students, right?" Zuckerberg said. "And we were just building stuff 'cause we thought it was cool. I do remember having these specific conversations with my friends where we thought, you know, someone is gonna build this. Someone is gonna build something that makes it so that people can stay connected with their friends and their family, but no way would we be the ones who were contributing to, kinda, leading the whole Internet in this direction."

But that's what he's doing - leading the whole Internet in his direction. In a non-descript T-shirt at a non-descript desk, Zuckerberg runs a vast global empire with the world's largest population after China and India.

Stahl first met him three years ago, at Facebook's old graffiti'd building in downtown Palo Alto. The company has since decamped to giant hangers nearby to accommodate their explosive growth. The graffiti is largely gone, except for one word you just can't miss.

"I see 'hack' everywhere: 'Hack,'" Stahl pointed out. "It has a negative connotation, doesn't it?"

"When we say hacker, there's this whole definition that engineers have for themselves, where it's very much a compliment when you call someone a hacker, where to hack something means to build something very quickly, right? In one night, you can sit down and you could churn out a lot of code, and at the end, you have a product," Zuckerberg explained.

Which is what he expects from his 500 engineers: as we walked through the Facebook offices, we got a sense of high-level competition, whether it's writing code into the night or taking breaks to play speed chess. It's a constant game of one-upmanship.

Zuckerberg told Stahl about the company's "hackathons."

"Hackathons are these things where just all of the Facebook engineers get together and stay up all night building things," he said. "And, I mean, usually at these hackathons, I code too, just alongside everyone."

As he spoke, Stahl remembered his awkwardness from three years ago, and how he rarely blinks. But he's far more relaxed now, easier to smile, and noticeably more confident, as he tells you about all the new products they keep launching.

On Monday, Dec. 6, the company will launch a new layout for the heart of the site: every user's profile page.

For example, Zuckerberg's old page is filled with scrapbook-like entries in no order of importance, like "Andy Samberg plays me on Saturday Night Live."

You have to dig around to get any real sense of who Zuckerberg is as a person.

The new page is in effect "the Mark Zuckerberg story"- or how he wants his friends to see him. His bio information is right up top, with the kind of details he'd tell you if you met him.

"I work at Facebook and I spend all of my time there, right? I mean, here are my friends. I grew up in New York and now I live in California, right. Those really kind of basic, important things," he explained.

Under the bio are the latest photos posted by him or his friends. It's like a running ticker tape of his life. Every day, a staggering 100 million photos are uploaded on to the site.

"Lots of photos," Stahl remarked, looking at the new design.

"People love photos," Zuckerberg said. "Photos originally weren't that big a part of the idea for Facebook, but we just found that people really like them, so we built out this functionality."

A dozen engineers and designers worked on the new layout in a war room of sorts. They raced against a real countdown clock, telling them how much time was left to complete each high priority task.

They came up with several new features, including a new section, located on the left of the profile page: where you can now list the important people in your life, like your parents, siblings, spouse, roommates, or friends.

Another new feature, called “the friendship page,” pulls up a history of your relationship with any of your Facebook friends.

"You can see all the things that you have in common with that person. And it gives you this amazing connection with that person in a way that the current version of the profile that we have today just doesn't do," Zuckerberg said.

For the over-sharers among us, you'll still get the newsfeed.

Also new: there's lots more graphics under "What's important to you." Zuckerberg likes Lady Gaga and epic movies; and finally, there's a sports section. He plays tennis, and likes the Yankees.

But whenever Facebook introduces something new, there are always questions about how it protects our personal data.

"There's a sense that you, after all this time, aren't always aboveboard, and that there's some hidden motive to, kind of, invade our privacy, take the information and use it to make money," Stahl pointed out.

"We never sell your information. Advertisers who are using the site never get access to your information," Zuckerberg said.

But the new layout does encourage us to reveal more about ourselves on Facebook. Earlier this year, the company also introduced a new button, where users can tell Facebook what they "like" in over 100,000 sites: whether it's a new pair of jeans, or a "60 Minutes" story.

So the company does compile and control an ever-growing inventory of your likes and interests, and if Facebook itself doesn't sell the information to advertisers, applications (or apps) that run on Facebook by outside companies have been known to.

"It's against all of our policies for an application to ever share information with advertisers," Zuckerberg said.

"But they do. They do," Stahl said.

"And then, we shut them down if they do," Zuckerberg said.

Stahl talked to Kara Swisher, the editor of "All Things Digital," a Web site about high tech in Silicon Valley.

"You know, I wonder if Facebook can exist if it doesn't invade privacy," Stahl said.

"That's right. That's exactly right," Swisher agreed.

"So it needs to invade privacy. The issue is transparency, isn't it?" Stahl asked.

"Kind of, yes," Swisher said.

"How up front they are with the users…," Stahl said.

"That is, I think, Mark's one weakness. And I think that was why he got so nervous in the interview we did," Swisher replied.

Swisher is referring to a conference in June where she grilled Zuckerberg on privacy in an interview she calls a "sweat-o-palooza." "And he had, like, flop sweat and it was really quite disturbing actually to watch," she remembered.

She was pushing him to admit that Facebook is misleading about its privacy policies - an issue that comes up time and time again.

"Now, do we get it right all the time? No!" Zuckerberg told Stahl. "But it's something that we take really seriously, and every day we come to work and just try to do a good job on this."

"And yet, you've got the FTC looking into it, you have members of Congress looking into it. There have been privacy groups have lodged formal complaints. You've hired a lobbyist in Washington to deal with this, so you know it's a problem," Stahl said.

"Well, I think that it's a really important thing for everyone to…just be thinking about. I mean, privacy and making sure that people have control over their information is, I think, one of the most fundamental things on the Internet," Zuckerberg said.

It has become even more important as Facebook introduces one new product after the next.

Chris Cox, 28, is head of product development. He sits across the desk from Zuckerberg and thinks about what's next for Facebook. And increasingly, he's thinking outside your desktop.

According to Cox, over 200 million people are accessing Facebook through their mobile device. He told Stahl it's a huge part of the future.

"Is Facebook developing a phone device? Like Apple did iPhone?" Stahl asked.

"No," Cox replied. "We're working on building software that can be used on all phones."

Their latest product is "Messages," which combines e-mail, cell phone texting and instant messages into one. They call it the ultimate switchboard.

Asked if he thinks e-mail will become obsolete, Cox told Stahl, "I'm not sure. But what we've found is that more people are using messages, are moving away from e-mail. And so if we build a really compelling experience, I think people are going to switch over. But I'm not going to call the end of anything."

"Was this directed at Gmail? Google's e-mail?" Stahl asked.

"No," Cox said.

"Because everybody is talking about a Gmail killer," Stahl said.

"It's certainly what everyone's writing about," Cox acknowledged.

When asked if Facebook and Google are on a collision course, Kara Swisher told Stahl, "They are indeed."

The fight, Swisher explained, is over search. "How people find, discovery, search."

Say you want to buy a car. You can type "Prius" on Google and get publicly available information. Or you can type "Prius" in Facebook and get personal advice about it from your friends.

"Are you tryin' to turn everything we do on the Web into a social function?" Stahl asked.

"I think what we've found is that when you can use products with your friends and your family and the people you care about, they tend to be more engaging," Zuckerberg said. "I think that we're really going to see this huge shift where a lot of industry is and products are just going to be remade to be social."

It's already happening: this year, people spent more time on Facebook than on Google.

"So you're out here in Silicon Valley. Can you feel a tectonic plates…shifting over?" Stahl asked Kara Swisher.

"Well you can see the talent shift over," she replied. "You know, and there's been a big war about talent and payments, millions of dollars to keep people, engineers at Google."

Zuckerberg's number two, Sheryl Sandberg, defected from Google; he recently wooed over the inventor of Google Maps, and he even poached Google's cafeteria chef.

"There's kind of a talent brain drain from them to you, something like 200 people who work for you. Ten percent are former Googlers, right?" Stahl asked.

"I do think it's clear there are areas where the companies compete. But then, there are all these areas where we just don't compete at all," Zuckerberg said.

"Is the goal for you to conquer the whole Internet? To own the Internet?" Stahl asked.

"Well, think about it like this: people, if they can use the product of any category, photos, groups, music, TV, anything, either by themselves or with their friends, I think most of the time, people want to do those things with their friends," he replied.

"So, is the answer yes?" Stahl asked, laughing. "Come on."

"The answer…is that we want to help other people build a lot of these products," he replied.

He doesn't like to talk about competing with Google, just as he didn't three years ago, when Stahl compared him to its founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

"You seem to be replacing Larry and Sergey as the people out here who everyone's talking about. You're just staring at me," Stahl said to Zuckerberg in their first interview, in 2007.

"Is that a question?" Zuckerberg replied, after a long pause.

That line is now in "The Social Network," the movie about Facebook.

The question is: who is the real Mark Zuckerberg? And how did Facebook really get its start?

Facebook's launch of its new profile page will include a tutorial on all the new features, and for a while you'll be able to choose between staying with your old profile or upgrading to the new, where you get to tell your friends who you really are. We decided to take the opportunity of the launch to find out more about who Zuckerberg really is.

As Facebook becomes an intrinsic part of so many lives, how the site came to be in the first place is now the fodder of creation myths, a handful of lawsuits, at least two books, and a movie: all focusing on its co-founder and CEO.

"Half a billion people give you their personal information. Do you feel that because of that, they have a right to know a lot about you personally? About your values….?" Stahl asked.

"Yeah, I think that because of that, we have to do a very good job of communicating, as a company, really…," Zuckerberg replied.

"No, you. I'm talking about you, Mark Zuckerberg. Is it important to know who's running Facebook in light of that?" she asked.

"Yeah. Yeah, it is," he replied.

Interest in what makes Zuckerberg tick has heightened since the release of the movie "The Social Network," that depicts him as a callous genius, who betrays friends and principles to protect his creation, Facebook.

The real Zuckerberg vowed he would never see the film; on opening day he changed his mind.

"We took the whole company to go see the movie," he recalled. "I actually thought it was pretty fun."

"But I guess my question is: Was it hard to watch for you?" Stahl asked.

"In watching it, it's pretty interesting to see what parts they got right and what parts they got wrong. I think that they got every single T-shirt that they had the Mark Zuckerberg character wearing right. I think I actually own those T-shirts," Zuckerberg said. "And they got sandals right and all that. But I mean, there are hugely basic things that they got wrong, too. I mean, they made it seem like my whole motivation for building Facebook was so I could get girls, right? And they completely left out the fact that my girlfriend, I've been dating since before I started Facebook, right?"

"Wait, what? Say that again. The girl, your current girlfriend, you were dating back then?" Stahl asked.

"Yeah, I've been dating my current girlfriend…since before I created Facebook," he explained.

"You know, I've heard two reactions. One is about you very personally, and it's not so flattering. The other is that, 'Wow, he's a really great entrepreneur,'" Stahl said.

"I get two reactions, too," Zuckerberg said. "But they're actually a little bit different from the ones that you said. There's a set of people who, I think, have been following the Facebook story who, I think, had a deeper analysis of which things in the movie were true and which ones were false and all that.

Then the rest of people, I just think were pretty surprised and even amazed that, like, 'Wow, Facebook is an interesting enough thing to make a movie out of,' or 'This Mark Zuckerberg person, I never heard of him, like, this must be interesting.' And I can't tell you how many messages I've gotten from people who use Facebook writing in to say 'This movie was really inspiring to me. After seeing this movie, I want to start a company.' Or 'I want to go into computer science,' or 'I want to study math.' And if the movie had that affect on people, then awesome, right? I mean, that's great."

"You almost sound enthusiastic about this movie," Stahl remarked.

One part he doesn't like has to do with the Winklevoss twins, Tyler and Cameron.

In real life, they're Olympic rowers who claim that when they were at Harvard, they had the idea of a university based social networking site first. That in 2003 Zuckerberg agreed to work on their project, but instead, they say, he ripped them off.

"When we approached him, we had been working on the idea for almost a year at that point. We had a sophisticated code base. It wasn't an idea scribbled on a napkin. It was a very, sort of mature idea. And we brought him on to bring it to completion," Cameron Winklevoss told Stahl.

"We agreed to work on this project. He sabotaged our project; and he betrayed us," his brother Tyler added.

"There were other social networking sites already there. It isn't as if you had the first idea, right? You admit that?" Stahl asked.

"That's a typical argument that comes from Facebook that social networking existed at the time," Tyler Winklevoss said. "We weren't individuals on separate sides of the country developing social networks unbeknownst to each other. We were teammates. We were partners."

"So how did you actually find out that he was working on a different project?" Stahl asked.

"We found out by reading the Harvard student newspaper," Tyler Winklevoss recalled.

Asked what the article said, he told Stahl, "It said to the effect, Mark Zuckerberg launches the Facebook.com. It described a bit about it. We turned to each other and we said, 'Isn't that the Mark Zuckerberg that's working with us on the same project?'"

So they sued, and in 2008 the case was settled out of court for a reported $65 million. But the twins have since appealed, arguing that Facebook misled them about the value of the stock in the settlement.

"Why are you pounding away at this when you're making so much money?" Stahl asked.

"This is all about principle," Tyler Winklevoss said.

"Well, I have to be honest with you, it doesn't look that way," Stahl remarked. "It looks like it's all about money."

"No, you will have, I'm not sure anybody can quite put themselves in our shoes and understand what it must've felt like to start an idea in 2002, to approach a fellow student in 2004, to have it stolen, sabotaged, ripped off," he replied.

Recently leaked instant messages, reportedly from Zuckerberg's old computer, suggest he did deliberately delay the twins' project.

"He premeditatedly sandbagged us because he knew getting there first was everything. There wasn't room for two social networks at Harvard and universities around the country," Tyler Winklevoss said.

"What do you say to people who say, 'Come on, give the guy a break. He was 19 years old,'?" Stahl asked.

"I know that when I was 19, I wouldn't have behaved that way. I would have, you know, certainly not betrayed fellow classmates," Cameron Winklevoss said.

When Stahl asked whether they had profiles on Facebook, the twins said yes.

"Let me ask you about the Winklevoss twins. They sued, you settled. They're still coming after you," Stahl said to Zuckerberg.

"You know, it's hard for me to fully wrap my head around where they're coming from on this. You know, early on, they had an idea that was completely separate from Facebook. And that, I mean, it was a dating site for Harvard. And I agreed to help them out with it, to help them. Right, I mean, it wasn't a job, they weren't paying me, I wasn't hired by them or anything like that. And then, the idea that I would then go work on something completely different, like Facebook, and that they would be upset about this all these years later is kinda mindboggling for me. Now, I mean, this is another thing that I think the movie really missed is, I mean, they make it seem like this whole lawsuit is such a huge part of Facebook's history. I've probably spent less than two weeks of my time worried about this lawsuit at all, right?" Zuckerberg replied.

"Maybe you should've worried about it a little more," Stahl remarked.

"Maybe I should have earlier on, right?" he replied. "But I guess the point that I'm trying to make is this has never been a big deal to Facebook or its evolution."

"Do you feel any, any remorse at all about the twins or anything that happened with them?" Stahl asked.

"I mean, after all this time, I feel bad that they still feel bad about it," Zuckerberg said.

Kara Swisher says she doesn't feel sorry for the twins. "I'm sorry. They got paid $65 million for one medium idea that they never could've made into anything," she said.

"Well, you sound very sympathetic to Mark as an individual, to me," Stahl said.

"In this case, yes, 'cause he is the entrepreneur. I think he definitely tried to screw with the Winklevoss [twins]. That's clear. He promised to do a service for them he didn't do. He did. But he also did build the business without their help," Swisher said.

Three years ago, Swisher coined the term "Toddler CEO," referring to Zuckerberg.

"And you told us that you thought he was inexperienced and way too young to run this company," Stahl remembered.

But three years later, Swisher said, "He's done a great job. He's a prodigy. The toddler's a prodigy, as it turns out."

"When I was here three years ago, they were calling you the Toddler CEO, and they don't say that any more at all. This is a tough question, but try: How would you grade yourself as a CEO, as the leader of this business?" Stahl asked.

"I mean, that is a hard question," Zuckerberg replied. "I also don't think you can ever win by answering that question. Now, we've made a huge number of mistakes along the way. Right, now I always say I just think we've made probably every possible mistake you could make."

"Is there a decision that you've made that the people around you told you was a mistake and you defied them and you were right?" Stahl asked.

"You know, the most famous one, I think, probably has to do with selling the company, right? I mean, in 2006…we had this opportunity to sell the company to Yahoo for a billion dollars. And we turned that down. I think a lot of people at the time thought we should sell the company," Zuckerberg said.

"But you know, I felt really strongly," he explained. "And I think now, people generally think that that was a good decision."

Since that decision, the company has grown considerably. Estimates are that if there were an initial public stock offering - an IPO - today, Facebook would be valued between $35-and $50 billion.

Asked if he is ever going to have the IPO, Zuckerberg said, "You know, maybe."

"It's like you can't let go," Stahl remarked.

"I don't think it's letting go. Here's the way that I think about it: a lot of people who I think build startups or companies think that selling the company or going public is this endpoint. Right, it's like you win when you go public. And that's just not how I see it," he said.

"You're 26 years old," Stahl said. "Feel old?"

"Yeah," Zuckerberg replied.

"Yeah, running this giant company. Your personal worth is said to be $6.9 billion. Do you ever just pinch yourself? Do you ever just say, 'Wow, this happened to me'?" Stahl asked.

Zuckerberg replied, "I mean, it is pretty crazy!"

"That part," he replied, laughing.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, 60 Minutes, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Thursday, September 23, 2010

"Social Network" The Movie: Trailer (Unauthorized Facebook Story)












Sources: Facebook, Sony Pictures, Youtube

Friday, April 16, 2010

Osama Bin Laden's Facebook Page Disabled, Had 1,000 Extremist Fans







































Osama Bin Laden's Facebook Page Disabled


The Al Qaeda leader, or someone posing as him, was using the Facebook social networking site as a platform to show videos and speeches to Islamic militants.

His address was given as "the mountains of the world."

On Thursday, security experts urged Facebook's U.S. owners to shut down the profile page, named "The leader of the Mujahideen, Osama bin Laden."

The profile became active on March 25 and has already attracted nearly 1,000 extremists. Access is via the Taliban's own Facebook presence, according to U.K. publication The Sun.

Although the language used is Arabic, messages in English were beginning to appear.

"Bin Laden, via his supporters, is clearly taunting his pursuers," Internet terror expert and author Neil Doyle said.

Doyle notes on his Blog that the site contains numerous images, dozens of video clips of bin Laden and scenes from films issued by terrorist groups worldwide. One shows a group of al-Qaeda fighters undergoing training in Afghanistan, which was produced by the terror network's official media arm As-Sahab Media.

Another shows a clip of bin Laden lecturing his followers in Afghanistan just before the 9/11 attacks.

Facebook does not have an explicit anti-terrorism policy, although the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities notes that "you will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law."

The statement also demands that "you will not post content that is hateful, threatening," or in other ways is inappropriate.

"People often attempt to register fake accounts under the name of famous or infamous people, and we have a number of technical measures designed to prevent this behavior," explained Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes.

"Sometimes these fakes do get through but there is no evidence to suggest that the account in question or the other dozens of people who have tried to present themselves as Osama Bin Laden have any relation to the terrorist. As is our standard practice, we have disabled the account."



Sources: Facebook, Fox News, The Sun

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Obama's Strategies For 2012 Presidential Win





















































How Obama Wins In 2012


Despite sagging poll numbers, the president has bottomed out, and Republicans still lack the leaders and the ideas to beat him, argues former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon.



All of my Republican friends are acting as giddy as kids at Christmas. They are delighting in the misfortunes of the Democrats. They believe, accurately, in my opinion, that the health-care bill is political suicide—at least in the short term. So, if the health-care bill passes, Republicans take the House in the fall. And if the health-care bill doesn’t pass, the Democrats look feckless and incapable of getting anything done, and they still lose the House in the fall.

The political environment is as toxic as we’ve ever seen. President Obama entered office during one of the most troubled and challenging times in our history. He got dealt a bad hand, but many argue that he and his party have played a bad hand badly.

But something very interesting and counterintuitive is happening with Obama. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll published Tuesday has two findings that are at odds with one another. First, only 17 percent of the American public approve of Congress. That’s the lowest sounding ever recorded for Capitol Hill. And it’s hard to imagine just who makes up that 17 percent, beyond friends and family.

Obama’s approval ratings, on the other hand, hover well above his colleagues'—at a healthy 48 percent.

Let’s drill down on that a bit. It’s hard to imagine that things will get any worse for Obama during his presidency. The economy may not be roaring by 2012, but it’s likely to be better. Whatever happens with the health-care bill, assuming it does ultimately pass, it will have had time to take effect and will probably be less onerous than feared. Most soldiers will be out of Iraq and perhaps progress will be apparent in Afghanistan.

No president has been reelected with an approval rating below 47. And, so Obama, at what is probably the lowest point in his presidency, still has a strong enough approval rating to win a second White House term. And that’s before a reelection campaign in which he and his team will probably spend $1 billion.

Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that the Republicans do take the House this fall. If they do, it’s a blessing for Obama—because then there will be shared responsibility and he can blame-shift accountability for all the failures of Congress. He will replay Bill Clinton’s playbook from 1994.

Besides, you have to beat the other team by putting players on the field who have better talent and skills. If the players on the stage are Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner, whose unnatural-looking spray tan and gleaming teeth make him look like the host for The Price Is Right, or Mitch McConnell, who comes across like a funeral director, Obama’s going to look like Babe Ruth. And to win, you have to have better ideas. At this point, with a respectful nod to Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republicans look more like a glue factory than an idea factory.

So to all my Republican friends, I say, don’t start poppin’ the Champagne yet. Obama has taken the worst possible political pounding and he’s still on his feet and looking pretty strong.





The New Idealist Social Network



Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes talks to Dana Goldstein about his new venture for connecting volunteers to non-profits, Jumo, which goes up today, and why Obama’s Organizing for America fell short.


Among Facebook’s tight-knit group of co-founders, Chris Hughes has always been the idealistic one.

When the social networking site first took off in 2004 and his roommates Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz dropped out of Harvard to make a killing, Hughes—a middle class kid from North Carolina—returned to college and graduated, writing a thesis about Algiers. When candidate Barack Obama intrigued Hughes, he shocked Facebook CEO Zuckerberg by quitting the company to work in the unprofitable world of campaign organizing, where Hughes helped to build and run MyBarackObama.com, the candidate’s groundbreaking online organizing tool.

When the presidential race ended and Hughes needed to chart his next move, he tried venture capital, doing a stint as “entrepreneur-in-residence” at General Capital Partners in Cambridge. But he kept asking himself what he could do to contribute to the greater good.

So Hughes traveled to Africa, India, and Latin America. He spoke to development gurus like Jacqueline Novogratz of the non-profit Acumen Fund and Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist famous for his proposals on how to eradicate global poverty by 2025.

“I was constantly thinking, ‘What do I know and how can I use what I know to help these people?’” Hughes said of the social welfare thinkers and activists he met during his travels. “I took some serious time trying to think through that question.”

Where he ended up was Jumo.com—a new networking site to connect non-profits to the public and to one another, which soft launches Thursday morning. By fall, members will be able to use Jumo to learn more about social justice causes, donate money, and find out about opportunities to volunteer time and skills. The name means “together in concert” in Yoruba, a language spoken in Eastern Senegal, which Hughes visited last April and fell in love with.

On Jumo, Hughes says, a college student looking to volunteer during spring break will be able to type in the dates of her vacation, the regions to which she’d like to travel, and see a comprehensive list of volunteer opportunities. A lawyer fluent in Spanish might be able to help Latin American governments rewrite building codes to better protect against earthquake damage.

A Washington, D.C. woman who gives regularly to Planned Parenthood could learn about related, smaller organizations that need support, such as Hughes favorite One by One, which funds the $420 surgery that repairs obstetric fistulas, a preventable condition caused during childbirth that can lead to a lifetime of stigma for affected women, who often leak urine and feces out of their vaginas.

Hughes recently relocated from Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights neighborhood to the Village to be closer to friends, he says, yet—perhaps a sign of his desire for do-gooder, bohemian cred—“I felt sort of bad about leaving Brooklyn.” Jumo, a non-profit, is now his full-time job, and since he decided to move forward with the idea in January, he has been able to raise about $500,000 from individual donors, hire two full-time staffers, and rent office-space in SoHo.

Whether the non-profit sector is ready to embrace a new social networking platform remains to be seen, especially given these organizations’ often-limited staff time and lack of familiarity with cutting edge technology. And there’s competition—Ning, for instance, allows non-profits to build their own branded social networking websites using pre-fabricated tools.

But the most formidable rivals are Hughes’ old friends at Facebook, which already offers the application Causes, on which users can donate money and promote non-profits to friends. Hundreds of thousands of non-profits are members of Causes, and in the application’s first two years, 25 million Facebook users “joined” at least one of the causes. But according to a Washington Post report, the majority of Causes non-profits have never received a single donation through the application.

Hughes says what sets Jumo apart is that there will be fewer distractions—activism is the only reason to be there—and that when there’s a single website people can visit to learn about how to do good, they will start to engage philanthropically more often. “We have a real problem when it comes to giving,” Hughes said. “People tend to give around moments of crisis, at the end of the year, maybe when they see a really dramatic photo or video, the quote-unquote starving child in Africa.

“The old way of doing this would be to put together a consulting firm and go to each non-profit one by one and offer to build a website, Facebook page, and email program for them,” he said. “But the model we’re embracing is where we create a platform.”

Hughes knows from personal experience that not every launch is as successful as Facebook. He worked on the transition team that turned MyBarackObama.com into Organizing for America, now a division of the Democratic National Committee. OFA has been criticized for failing to mobilize its 13 million-person email list in support of health-care reform.

“It didn’t remain an independent organization, which I think it should have,” Hughes said, adding that OFA has been under-staffed. “In the language of the campaign, we saw a movement of people who were hungry for change. They were much less concerned with the Democratic Party.”

For now, Hughes is looking for ways to make change outside of government. He is gay and has criticized gay rights organizations for not being web-savvy. Similarly, he says online tools like Twitter don’t make it easy enough for like-minded people to meet and organize in the real world.

“The basic premise” behind Jumo, Hughes said, “is that people have a genuine desire to be more involved in the world around them. But the Internet and opportunities online haven’t yet caught up with that desire for people to meet and engage.”



Sources: The Daily Beast

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Google Buzz Violates Wire Tap Laws? EPIC Says Yes





































EPIC: Google May Have Broken Wiretap Law


If Google wanted to create a quick buzz around its new social networking service, it's certainly accomplished that. Last week, when the Web giant automatically signed up millions of Gmail users for its new Buzz social network, much of the Internet was sent into a privacy tizzy.

Google announced serious modifications to the service later in the week, but that wasn’t enough for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). On Tuesday, it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asking the regulator to order more changes. EPIC also accused Google of violating Federal Consumer Protection Law and suggested the firm may have broken wiretap laws, too.

While the details of the Buzz privacy dispute can seem esoteric, the main thrust of EPIC's complaint is simple: Google should never have pushed all 37 million U.S. Gmail users into a social networking service without asking, said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.

"E-mail is one area on the Internet where we have a well-understood expectation of privacy," Rotenberg said. "E-mail is for private messages. You sign up for social networking to communicate publicly with people, Google tried to turn e-mail into social networking, and that's where they ran into trouble."

The complaint lays out a series of alleged Google missteps that EPIC says constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices that violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. For starters, it says, all users who checked their Gmail account last week were suddenly signed up for Buzz. While Google offered users a chance to "check out" the service, it didn't give them the option to avoid it.

"Regardless of whether a user clicked the button labeled 'Sweet! Check out Buzz' or “Nah, go to my inbox,’ Google Buzz was activated," the complaint says.

Gmail account holders who then began using Buzz found their first public posting was essentially a list of their most frequent e-mail contacts. Buzz decided for itself who users e-mailed most often, then put those users on a list as "followers" and made that list public. Quickly, nightmare hypothetical scenarios were published -- workers who had recently e-mailed about job interviews had their job hunt exposed, for example. Cheating lovers or spouses were outed.

"Gmail contact lists routinely include deeply personal information, including the names and email addresses of estranged spouses, current lovers, attorneys and doctors," the EPIC complaint said. "Users were not explicitly warned that their lists would be automatically visible to the public. ... Anyone looking at a newly activated Buzz user’s following list would know that the list indicated which people that user communicated with most often."

In addition to causing potential embarrassment -- or worse – Google may have broken the law by disclosing e-mail contacts, EPIC said.

"Improper disclosure of even a limited amount of subscriber information by an e-mail service provider can be a violation of both state and federal law," it said. "An attempt by an e-mail service provider to attempt to convert the personal information of all of its customers into a separate service raises far-reaching concerns."

Google has already gone through two rounds of revisions with its service, and Buzz now tells new users that frequent e-mail partners will be “followers” unless the user prevents that. New users now see a list of potential followers -- checked by default -- when they sign up for the service.

But on Tuesday, Rotenberg said that Google still hadn't gone far enough to address privacy concerns. Buzz still ropes in Gmail users and their e-mail contacts by default, which can lead to unintended disclosure of personal information, he says.

Rotenberg said Buzz users should have to actively opt in before Buzz is activated, rather than opt out.

"It's always about the defaults," he said.

EPIC has called on the FTC to force Google to:

*make Buzz a fully opt-in service.
* force Google to cease using Gmail users’ private address book contacts to compile social networking lists.
*give Buzz users more control over their information.


For a company that has already dealt with plenty of privacy related issues, Google's misreading of public reaction to Buzz is a surprise, said Larry Ponemon, a privacy researcher who runs The Ponemon Institute.

"It is astonishing to me that a decision was made to release a product that the average person would see as a potential privacy snafu," he said. "Things like this seem to happen because people making decisions just aren't thinking about privacy. … Sometimes companies don't when they are about to release something they think is really cool."

Ponemon did say that he was impressed with Google's quick response to the controversy, taking only a few days to make changes to the service.

"They did take it seriously, you could tell they had all hands on deck," he said.

Rotenberg said Google was more worried about stiff competition in the social media world than privacy.

“Google tried to take advantage of its market position" by dragging all Gmail users into Buzz overnight, he said, thereby giving the service a running start in the uphill battle to catch Facebook and Twitter in the social networking space.

That's why he wants the FTC to be more proactively involved in privacy policy.

"The FTC has had a hands-off policy, leading to some bad business practices," he said.

Google said in an e-mail statement to msnbc.com that it was working hard to make adjustments to its service based on user feedback, and will keep "user transparency and control top of mind.

“We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns," the statement continued. "Our door is always open to organizations with suggestions about our products and services.”



Sources: MSNBC, First Read, Red Tape Chronicles, FTC

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iran's Internet & Blogosphere: How They Work
















MSNBC Cosmic Log----




An analysis of Iran's Internet reveals a deep level of diversity, with a level of surveillance (and surveillance-dodging) that goes just as deep. During this week's post-election crisis, so many reflections have been bouncing back and forth in this online hall of mirrors that it's sometimes hard to get a fix on where anyone stands - geographically or politically.

Iran is a particularly fitting battleground: A status report on the government's Internet filtering effort, just updated this week by the OpenNet Initiative, notes that Iranian Internet usage has grown nearly 50 percent every year for the past eight years - the highest growth rate in the Middle East. About 35 percent of the country's population uses the Internet, a level of penetration significantly higher than the Middle East average of 26 percent.

Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society says Iran is home to one of the world's richest and most varied blogospheres, with major clusters for secular/reformist politics as well as conservative politics, for "CyberShia" religious discussion as well as Persian poetry appreciation.

At the same time, the OpenNet Initiative says Iran has one of the world's most extensive Net filtering systems, on a par with China's. The government's Net-limiting efforts have been on full display over the past week during a clampdown on Web access, text messaging and mobile phone traffic.

OpenNet's first report on Iranian filtering, released four years ago, stirred up a controversy when it found that authorities in Tehran were using SmartFilter software, made in the U.S.A., to control Internet access. This year's update says Iran is now using home-brewed software instead, joining China as the two countries in the world "that aggressively filter the Internet using their own technology."

How do the Iranian officials do it? Only a limited number of Internet service providers have been licensed to operate, and those providers have to toe the line by using software that blocks users from accessing forbidden URLs (such as the BBC's Persian service). The forbidden list can be updated centrally - and of course, the list grew longer in advance of this month's presidential elections. If Internet users try to gain access to a blocked URL, a "blockpage" comes up instead, delivering a warning to the user that access is forbidden.

Power to the proxies:

So how are Iranians getting through to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other supposedly off-limits Web destinations? My colleague at msnbc.com, Bob Sullivan, addressed the Twitter case specifically in a Red Tape posting. More generally, Iranians are being pointed to detours in the information superhighway known as proxy servers.

Inside Iran, proxy servers are like passport control points: Outgoing data traffic is checked by the filtering system on the Internet service's proxy server, and if it's heading for a forbidden place, it's blocked from going farther. But if the destination is not on the forbidden list, it's allowed to go through.

Outside Iran, the proxy servers are like transit points. Activists set up proxy servers on their own computers, using Internet Protocol numbers that don't appear on the forbidden list. Traffic from Iran can go through to those addresses with no problem. The data traffic is then forwarded to wherever it's destined to go, even if that destination is supposedly forbidden.

During the post-election crisis, proxy servers have been popping up like thousands of computerized "Casablanca" cafes around the world. The Pirate Bay, a popular file-sharing site based in Sweden, launched an anonymous Net-surfing forum to help Iran's opposition - but most of the proxy providers are amateurs.

"There's an interesting dynamic between people outside Iran who are willing to configure their PCs to set up proxy servers, and people inside Iran who are willing to put that number in their browser," said Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain, a member of the OpenNet Initiative team. "On a day-to-day basis, you wouldn't see people going to this trouble."

The rapid growth of the proxy-server movement is one of the amazing things about the response to the Iran crisis. "You are seeing people go beyond making their avatars green and actually run new software on a computer that, a few moments ago, they were using to play 'Quake,'" Zittrain said.

On the Internet, no one knows you're Iranian:

The effect of this is that anonymity cloaks much of the traffic coming out of Iran nowadays. That goes for opposition activists, but it also goes for the Iranian government and its agents. Thus, there's something of a spy-vs.-spy battle going on: There's no easy way to know who is really messaging what, especially when it's passed along by numerous Twitter outsiders.

A classic example was the back-and-forth Twittering over what opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporters should be doing on Friday, which is shaping up as a crucial day in the post-election crisis. "Mousavi and Karoubi ask supporters not to attend Friday prayers in Tehran," a widely followed Twitterer known as Persiankiwi reported. But other Twitter messages read, "Mousavi Facebook and Twitter possibly hacked. Please delete tweets about not attending Friday prayers."

In the end, Twitterers - including, presumably, actual Iranians - had to make up their own minds on whose word to trust.

Another twist has to do with the impermanence of the proxy-server system. Once the Iranian authorities get wind of a popular proxy, they can shut it down by adding it to their forbidden list. "It's kind of a minute-by-minute arms race rather than a marathon," Zittrain said.

Sizing up the blogosphere:

Morningside Analytics' John Kelly, one of the authors of the Berkman Center's report on the Iranian blogosphere, said it will be interesting to see what effect Internet users have on the political crisis - and what effect the outcome of the crisis will have on Internet users.

One of the more interesting findings from the study was that the blog cluster centered on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's supporters was very self-contained, with relatively few connections to other parts of the blogosphere. Mousavi's cluster, in contrast, was significantly more connected with Iran's other blog clusters - which hinted at a wider spectrum of support.

Kelly said he saw a similar pattern during the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Republican-leaning blogs forming more of a self-contained "echo chamber" than Democratic-leaning blogs. Mousavi may not be Barack Obama, but Kelly finds the parallel interesting nonetheless.

"Two data points don't prove anything, but it's consistent with the idea that one of the candidates managed to break out and get support from outside the politicized base," Kelly said. That may be why Mousavi's movement seems to be more resilient than earlier post-revolution opposition movements in Iran.

Most of Iran's Weblogs were shut down in the wake of the election, but Kelly said he's hearing that they're starting to become accessible again. "If the blogosphere is coming back online, it'll be really interesting to see how this all reconfigures," he said.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Cosmic Log, Google Maps