Facebook’s sneakiness
Well, it had to happen. With so many people flocking to Facebook, it was only a matter of time before retailers started trying to nose their way into the community and find out what its members’ buying habits are.
Although Facebookers like their openness and enjoy the idea of sharing their lives with those they’re hooked up with, it seems that the agreement between Facebook and some major retailers has gone even too far for them. Now, if users do not opt out of a program whereby details of purchases are sent to thier friends, everyone in their network will be notified what they bought. To prevent this from happening, users have to un-click a box. If they don’t happen to see that checked box, they are considered to be “with the program.”
That could potentially ruin a lot of Christmas surprises and has seemingly pushed the privacy boundaries for a large portion of users. The backlash, I’m sure, was not unexpected by the involved companies. What they’re most interested in will be the degree of the backlash. How far can we push initiatives like this? is the question they are no doubt trying to answer.
Everyone on Facebook should regognize that more of these types of intrusions, in the interests of identifying spending habits, will be carried out as long as Facebook is the social networking behemoth it is. But it’s safe to say that the use of such “negative-option” sign-up methods is nothing short of a sneaky and slimy tactic on the parts of Facebook and its conspirators. It should be brought to a halt immediately.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
Russia’s hackers the stuff of Hollywood
What’s going on in Russia these days would make for a great tech-related movie. Think about it: you’ve got all kinds of organized crime groups running amok in what amounts to The Great Bear’s version of America’s 19th Century Wild West, salivating over the money to be made by way of Internet scams.
As analyst Chris Christensen points out in an article I wrote last week, the risk is minimal, the cost of entry negligible, and the monetary rewards can be about as big as…well…Russia.
These groups are offering young local IT brains the chance to make a boatload of cash in an otherwide depressed open economy currently experiencing some very painful adolescent growing pains.
If Hollywood can get it right, this would be a fascinating tableau for an international thriller. And it would go a long way to educating the general public about what’s happening on the Internet and why they have to download so many of those darn things called patches. Because few mediums have the ability to sway mass amounts of people today the way the movies still do.

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
The ‘Total Disclosure’ debate and Oracle OpenWorld
Oracle’s decision to invite bloggers to this year’s Oracle OpenWorld Conference that runs November 11 – 15 has sparked quite an animated discussion in the blogosphere about issues such as: transparency, disclosure, “press” freedom (as bloggers will be registered as press), compromise and so on.
But before we get to that, as there’s still some confusion about what types of privileges invited bloggers will enjoy, here’s a brief run down on what I’ve been able to glean so far:
- From a financial perspective, invitation means “free registration’ for bloggers. It apparently doesn’t mean Oracle will be picking up travel/hotel costs or expenses.
- While it’s called an “invitation”, apparently there’s no “invitees list.” Registration is “open” but to qualify you need to “blog about Oracle, enterprise software, Enterprise 2.0 or another loosely-coupled subject.” If you meet this criterion, you need to register as “Press.”
(As an aside, Oracle’s late-in-the-day decision has led to some interesting situations such as folk stating that they started blogging about Oracle about a month ago – but had registered for OpenWorld - and paid for it - before that, and now want a refund).
Okay, so now about the disclosure and “integrity” debate – one that incidentally, is as old as the hills.


