"We found that not only users, but developers as well, don't know what's happening in their apps, even in their own apps….”
An AP report carried in the San Francisco Chronicle states that approximately 25% of I-phone apps and 50% of Android apps contain code that harvests users’ information and surreptitiously sends it off to third-parties. Associated Press reporter Jordan Robertson says, “The data can include full details about users' contacts, their pictures, text messages and Internet search histories. The third parties can include advertisers and companies that analyze data on users.”
The data-harvesting code is hidden within scripts that allow apps to run advertising. The code is typically written by the third parties that facilitate ads and then provided to app developers who often do not realize they are including “extra” functions in their products.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
2010-07-29
2010-07-28
Facebook is Good for You. Maybe.
“Social support has been linked to lower blood pressure, and a diverse collection of contacts is associated with better immune system functioning.”
A story posted to Scientific American’s website today cites the research of a psychology professor at BYU that indicates a large and active social network is positively correlated with good health. The study did not specifically examine the effects of online social media, however the author of the study speculates that such connections probably help, but not as much as face-to-face interaction.
A story posted to Scientific American’s website today cites the research of a psychology professor at BYU that indicates a large and active social network is positively correlated with good health. The study did not specifically examine the effects of online social media, however the author of the study speculates that such connections probably help, but not as much as face-to-face interaction.
2010-07-26
"Unmanaged Possibilities Become Probabilities"
"I think in a few years’ time we’ll see an entirely new focus regarding social networking and business: It will be considered to have been a serious wrong turn…" David Scott, CIO/Fortune 100 IT professional, author: I.T. WARS: Managing the Business-Technology Weave in the New Millennium.
Here is a pretty good take on the issue of social media in the workplace, as viewed from the corporate Information Technology chair. Scott doesn't reject such use, but he does make a good case for why it must be managed. When an employee is telling the boss why, for instance, Facebook will be benign or even beneficial at work, this is what the boss is hearing in the other ear from the Chief Information Officer.
Here is a pretty good take on the issue of social media in the workplace, as viewed from the corporate Information Technology chair. Scott doesn't reject such use, but he does make a good case for why it must be managed. When an employee is telling the boss why, for instance, Facebook will be benign or even beneficial at work, this is what the boss is hearing in the other ear from the Chief Information Officer.
2010-07-25
Week 4 in Review
What a week! Interesting reading and a tropical storm warning to boot!
In summary,
In summary,
- I read everything posted to the message boards by 2215CDT today. I made eleven posts, participating most heavily in the “Informal Learning, Expertise, and Certification” thread.
- I made five posts to my blog. The most fun, on “Internet Sabbath”, stemmed from an interesting NPR interview. The most intense, "A High-Tech Lynching, Redux”, gave very minor vent to my frustration with the current state of journalism and its interaction with the blogosphere. (And then one of my journalism heroes, Daniel Schorr, died Friday at 93. I feel that we have really lost the thread on something important. and I feel sad.)
- I read all of my classmates’ blog posts through 1900 CDT today. I’ve got some sharp peers, and I enjoy seeing what they have for us.
- I enjoyed writing my “Web 2.0 Community Observations” paper. I had to whittle it down to the max length. (Seeing as it is a quarter of the overall grade for the class, I sure hope I was on the right track!) I understand this was a new assignment—it was interesting and seemed worthwhile, and I recommend trying it again next cycle.
- I explored ideas for my Produsage assignment, due in two weeks. That one feels a bit slippery so far. Should be interesting.
Week 4 Prompts and Answers
How do you judge the value of expertise on the Web?
Interesting question. I’m known (with smiles) in my family as the guy to ask the comparative rating questions, (“Is A better than B for application X?”) not because I have first hand knowledge but because I am a research hound. The level of effort I direct toward such investigations is proportionate to the importance (often “value” or “cost”) of the decision, but can be skewed positively by personal interest in the issue. (Want to talk sailboats?)
When researching purchases, I frequently haunt the Consumer Reports website, or Epinions, or the CNET forums, etcetera. I like it when I find a site with “satisfaction ratings”, such as those at Amazon. I also derive comfort from the law of large numbers; when I go to NewEgg and find that 900 people have rated a hard drive and left prose descriptions of their rationale, I tend to trust the overall summary of results. I do believe in the wisdom of crowds. I pay attention to the contrarians—I want to know why they are outliers, know to what they were paying attention. I value “Real Name” reviews, wherein verified users stand behind their statements.
When seeking non-purchase information, I try to find sources that have "trust rating" mechanisms, as these can serve as a combination of peer review and as indicators of the experience others have had with this source. A long history of participation at a durable site can lend credibility.
Does it differ from your notion of expertise in face-to-face settings?
Somewhat, in that with F2F situations I more directly undertake to qualify the “expert”. This is easier in areas in which I too have some expertise—I can probe for edges in my “advisor’s” experience. When I’m out of my content area, I often ask specific questions about the “down side” of a product or action being recommended. Sales-minded individuals are often only prepared to speak to the up-side of their recommendation, whereas someone genuinely comfortable in their expertise can usually address trade-offs.
Interesting question. I’m known (with smiles) in my family as the guy to ask the comparative rating questions, (“Is A better than B for application X?”) not because I have first hand knowledge but because I am a research hound. The level of effort I direct toward such investigations is proportionate to the importance (often “value” or “cost”) of the decision, but can be skewed positively by personal interest in the issue. (Want to talk sailboats?)
When researching purchases, I frequently haunt the Consumer Reports website, or Epinions, or the CNET forums, etcetera. I like it when I find a site with “satisfaction ratings”, such as those at Amazon. I also derive comfort from the law of large numbers; when I go to NewEgg and find that 900 people have rated a hard drive and left prose descriptions of their rationale, I tend to trust the overall summary of results. I do believe in the wisdom of crowds. I pay attention to the contrarians—I want to know why they are outliers, know to what they were paying attention. I value “Real Name” reviews, wherein verified users stand behind their statements.
When seeking non-purchase information, I try to find sources that have "trust rating" mechanisms, as these can serve as a combination of peer review and as indicators of the experience others have had with this source. A long history of participation at a durable site can lend credibility.
Does it differ from your notion of expertise in face-to-face settings?
Somewhat, in that with F2F situations I more directly undertake to qualify the “expert”. This is easier in areas in which I too have some expertise—I can probe for edges in my “advisor’s” experience. When I’m out of my content area, I often ask specific questions about the “down side” of a product or action being recommended. Sales-minded individuals are often only prepared to speak to the up-side of their recommendation, whereas someone genuinely comfortable in their expertise can usually address trade-offs.
2010-07-22
A High-tech Lynching, Redux
This week’s prompt centers on how to judge the value of expertise on the web. I’ll address that directly in my next post, but at the moment I am thinking about Shirky’s description of the “publish, then filter” approach of Web 2.0 and the current fallout from the Shirley Sherrod story.
In case you’ve managed to miss it, some time ago Ms. Sherrod, a mid-level administrator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a speech to the NAACP in which she recounted coming to grips with and rising above her own sense of racism. It has been characterized in whole as a redemption story. This week a partisan political blogger named Andrew Breitbart posted an excerpt of a tape of that speech, edited to give the impression that Ms. Sherrod proudly espouses racist views. The blogosphere lit up, the mainstream press caught wind and joined in, and in no time the USDA pressured her to resign, which she did. It isn’t clear if the White House dictated the USDA stance.
No one was interested in poor Ms. Sherrod’s insistence that meaning and context had been edited right out of her speech. Then someone actually watched the entire recording. Now the Secretary of the agency has personally apologized to Ms. Sherrod and offered her another position, the President of the nation has commiserated with her by telephone, and the various media outlets are mildly embarrassed that they ran with a story originating in a blog and never conducted their journalistic due diligence.
In an interesting live Q&A exchange today on the website of the Washington Post, Mark Potok, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, was responding to a stream of questions from produsers on the web. One participant brought to mind the media attention around the confirmation hearing of now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, opining, “I always thought that Clarence Thomas overhyped the term ‘hi-tech’ lynching" even though it caught on and seemed to work for him at the time. But wasn't what Andrew Breitbart, Fox News and others on the Right did to Shirley Sherrod on Monday a real hi-tech lynching? And for a day the Obama Administration joined the mob by requiring Sherrod's resignation from the Agriculture Department. Internet and cable technology combined with hyperbole were used to create, loop and spread a heavily edited video tape falsely insinuating that Sherrod is a ‘racist’.”
“Publish, then filter” may be the way of Web 2.0, but it isn’t the way of responsible journalism. Journalists aren’t supposed to join the lynch-mob. So how do we judge the value of expertise on the web? In the case of journalism, I neither value nor trust any news organization that puts getting the story first ahead of getting the story right. One upon a time, the threat of libel and slander lawsuits made prudent individuals and newspapers check their facts before engaging their pens and presses. I wonder if this case will inspire a closer examination of how those laws might apply to bloggers?
In case you’ve managed to miss it, some time ago Ms. Sherrod, a mid-level administrator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a speech to the NAACP in which she recounted coming to grips with and rising above her own sense of racism. It has been characterized in whole as a redemption story. This week a partisan political blogger named Andrew Breitbart posted an excerpt of a tape of that speech, edited to give the impression that Ms. Sherrod proudly espouses racist views. The blogosphere lit up, the mainstream press caught wind and joined in, and in no time the USDA pressured her to resign, which she did. It isn’t clear if the White House dictated the USDA stance.
No one was interested in poor Ms. Sherrod’s insistence that meaning and context had been edited right out of her speech. Then someone actually watched the entire recording. Now the Secretary of the agency has personally apologized to Ms. Sherrod and offered her another position, the President of the nation has commiserated with her by telephone, and the various media outlets are mildly embarrassed that they ran with a story originating in a blog and never conducted their journalistic due diligence.
In an interesting live Q&A exchange today on the website of the Washington Post, Mark Potok, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, was responding to a stream of questions from produsers on the web. One participant brought to mind the media attention around the confirmation hearing of now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, opining, “I always thought that Clarence Thomas overhyped the term ‘hi-tech’ lynching" even though it caught on and seemed to work for him at the time. But wasn't what Andrew Breitbart, Fox News and others on the Right did to Shirley Sherrod on Monday a real hi-tech lynching? And for a day the Obama Administration joined the mob by requiring Sherrod's resignation from the Agriculture Department. Internet and cable technology combined with hyperbole were used to create, loop and spread a heavily edited video tape falsely insinuating that Sherrod is a ‘racist’.”
“Publish, then filter” may be the way of Web 2.0, but it isn’t the way of responsible journalism. Journalists aren’t supposed to join the lynch-mob. So how do we judge the value of expertise on the web? In the case of journalism, I neither value nor trust any news organization that puts getting the story first ahead of getting the story right. One upon a time, the threat of libel and slander lawsuits made prudent individuals and newspapers check their facts before engaging their pens and presses. I wonder if this case will inspire a closer examination of how those laws might apply to bloggers?
Social Media and the Workplace
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has just published an article suggesting that “…employers who have well-defined social networking policies shouldn’t fret about the loss of productivity or corporate data.” It suggests that for many professionals, social networking tools can serve professional networking purposes.
The article notes that, per a March 2010 survey by TrendMicro, 24% of workers in the U.S. visit social networking sites from their corporate networks. However, citing a 2009 study from Ball State University, the work-time spent on Facebook pales compared to that spent on smoking breaks. (As a complete aside, I’m having a hard time thinking of anybody I know that is a daily smoker. Huh…. The BSU figure must be an individual rather than cumulative comparison.)
Thoughtful network-use policy is touted as the key to smooth integration (“co-existence”?) between social media and workplace expectations. “As long as employees know the rules, hopefully through their social media policies, they know what they can and can’t be doing and should and shouldn’t be doing on those social networks,” said Jessica Miller-Merrell, SPHR, blogger and author of the book Tweet This: Twitter for Business (The P3 Business, 2010).”
To add my own two-cents—for each individual workplace this is either disruptive or not, beneficial or not. Each manager is responsible for the allocation and use of resources, including both employee time and network use. I suppose that if I was concerned about the amount of work-time employees devoted to social media sites and they retorted that they were engaged in professional networking of potential benefit to the organization, then I might simply ask them to “friend” me. That might then help me make an informed decision vis-à-vis “beneficial”, “disruptive”, or “benign”.
The article notes that, per a March 2010 survey by TrendMicro, 24% of workers in the U.S. visit social networking sites from their corporate networks. However, citing a 2009 study from Ball State University, the work-time spent on Facebook pales compared to that spent on smoking breaks. (As a complete aside, I’m having a hard time thinking of anybody I know that is a daily smoker. Huh…. The BSU figure must be an individual rather than cumulative comparison.)
Thoughtful network-use policy is touted as the key to smooth integration (“co-existence”?) between social media and workplace expectations. “As long as employees know the rules, hopefully through their social media policies, they know what they can and can’t be doing and should and shouldn’t be doing on those social networks,” said Jessica Miller-Merrell, SPHR, blogger and author of the book Tweet This: Twitter for Business (The P3 Business, 2010).”
To add my own two-cents—for each individual workplace this is either disruptive or not, beneficial or not. Each manager is responsible for the allocation and use of resources, including both employee time and network use. I suppose that if I was concerned about the amount of work-time employees devoted to social media sites and they retorted that they were engaged in professional networking of potential benefit to the organization, then I might simply ask them to “friend” me. That might then help me make an informed decision vis-à-vis “beneficial”, “disruptive”, or “benign”.
2010-07-21
The "Internet Sabbath"
"We turn off the household modem, and we don't have smart phones, so therefore we can't get [in] our inboxes the whole weekend. We can't do Web surfing. We can still call, we can still text — but we're not really texting addicts," he explains. "We really enter this other zone, and it's wonderful." William Powers in an NPR interview.
Powers is that author of Hamlet's BlackBerry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. He addresses the problem of information overload, and makes suggestions for how the uber-connected modern netizen can achieve some balance. One of the tactics used in his family is the "Internet sabbath"--they schedule regular "disconnected" time. Powers says that, "Connectedness serves us best when it is balanced by a bit of disconnectedness."
Think that the issue of constant connectedness is overstated? The Vail School District in Southern Arizona has installed mobile wifi routers on school buses running longer routes. School children cursed with long bus rides but blessed with laptop computers or smart phones can now complete homework assignments and catch up on e-mail. Or they can just update their Facebook pages.
Speaking of which, Mark Zuckerberg says that Facebook now has half-a-billion (yes, with a "b") active users. If only he had $8 for every user... wait, he does! His "thank you" post is on FB, of course.
Powers is that author of Hamlet's BlackBerry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. He addresses the problem of information overload, and makes suggestions for how the uber-connected modern netizen can achieve some balance. One of the tactics used in his family is the "Internet sabbath"--they schedule regular "disconnected" time. Powers says that, "Connectedness serves us best when it is balanced by a bit of disconnectedness."
Think that the issue of constant connectedness is overstated? The Vail School District in Southern Arizona has installed mobile wifi routers on school buses running longer routes. School children cursed with long bus rides but blessed with laptop computers or smart phones can now complete homework assignments and catch up on e-mail. Or they can just update their Facebook pages.
Speaking of which, Mark Zuckerberg says that Facebook now has half-a-billion (yes, with a "b") active users. If only he had $8 for every user... wait, he does! His "thank you" post is on FB, of course.
2010-07-18
Week 3 in Review
Whew. Sunday night already? Okay, short and sweet—here is what I accomplished this week:
- I read everything posted to the message board by 2100CDT today. I contributed 13 posts of my own, including starting the “Nuts & Bolts” section, which seems to be serving as my own personal help-desk.
- I started a Twitter account, but don’t yet have a vision for how I want to use it. I’m following two people and three organizations. I’m not sure that this is my medium, but I’ll give it a fair try over the next three weeks.
- I made six posts to my blog, counting this one. The posts that took the most energy to create are not the ones drawing comments—I’m not sure what to thing about that. I feel a little like I’m singing opera in the shower.
- I put an embarrassingly large amount of time into following three forums. For the one in which I am an “active participant”, I find myself putting a large effort into researching my topics before I post. This is a lot like work!
- I’m almost three days behind on reading my classmates’ blogs. Quite frankly the time went into the forums I am following for the Web 2.0 Community Observations assignment.
Week 3 Prompts and Answers
- What uses might a collaborative wiki or blog have in your chosen (current or desired) work environment?
At present I am consulting to two clients. I believe that each of them is too small to successfully create and maintain a usable wiki. One of them makes significant use of day-labor, where literacy itself is not always assured, never mind internet access. For the other business I am actually speaking to them right now about trying a blog! I think that the main initial use would be as a combination of community service and indirect advertising.
- How would they support learning and/or performance?
- What would be the design and implementation challenges if management tried to do this? What would be the design and implementation challenges of a user-initiated effort?
We will likely try this in a few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)