John Dozier and his team are having fun creating teasers for our upcoming best selling book of one of today's hottest topics!!!! Internet Safety, Online Image, Monsters of the Web and more!
The Untold Story of my $11M Jury Verdict for Internet Defamation - Landmark Case and growing problem in the World Wide Web. - No - we are not in Kansas anymore!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2byX1XG9qT8
Order today - http://googlebombbook.com/
Showing posts with label Online Profiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Online Profiling. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Sue Scheff: Is Google God?
Source: Toronto Sun
More like Casebook
Social networking sites can sometimes make or break a case in court
Be careful what you post on Facebook or MySpace, because anything you say or upload can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Last year, for example, an Ottawa court heard that a civil servant had started a clandestine affair with an old friend she reconnected with through Facebook during a messy custody battle involving three kids.
In a Vancouver courtroom last month, defendants in a personal injury case produced photos from the plaintiff's Facebook profile showing that while Myla Bagasbas was seeking $40,000 in damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment after a car accident, she was still able to kayak, hike and bike post-accident.
"Facebook will be seen as a gold mine for evidence in court cases," said Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in ethics, law and technology at the University of Ottawa.
But it will also challenge the courts to further define the notion of personal privacy. In a precedent-setting case this year, a Toronto judge ordered that a man suing for physical injury in a car accident be cross-examined on the contents of his private Facebook profile. Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned a previous court decision that called the defendant's request to look for incriminating evidence a "fishing expedition."
The very nature of Facebook is to share personal information with others, Brown wrote, and is likely to contain relevant information about how the plaintiff, John Leduc, had led his life since the accident. But if Leduc's profile is private with restricted access, is that considered an invasion of privacy?
"The courts sometimes don't get it," Kerr said. "The tendency in judicial opinion and popular thinking is that once something is out in the public, there's no such thing as privacy anymore. But that can't be right because we all have curtains."
For Facebook users, those curtains are our privacy settings. If our home is our castle, Facebook should also be considered a walled domain, Kerr said.
For example, while a member may post pictures from a beer bash the night before, that doesn't mean they would take the same pictures to show off to their boss the next day, Kerr explained.
Likewise, in Murphy versus Perger, a judge ordered that the plaintiff, who was suing for claims of personal injury and loss of enjoyment of life after a car accident, produce copies of her Facebook pages showing photos of her engaging in social activities. In her judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady wrote "The plaintiff could not have a serious expectation of privacy given that 366 people have been granted access to the private site."
But having 366 Facebook friends doesn't entitle the rest of the world to view personal information meant only for certain eyes, said Avner Levin, director of the Privacy Institute at Toronto's Ryerson University.
"It's not how many people you share it with, it's who you choose to share the information with," Levin said. "The judge is missing the point. What's important is not how many people are your friends, but who you choose to know you."
While we're able to compartmentalize and separate people in our lives offline by assigning titles to different spheres -- co-workers, neighbours, family -- the online world fails to recognize those distinctions, he added.
It's a habit that spills over in the job hunt as well. Employers admit they rely heavily on information they glean about a candidate from Google searches and networking profile pages. But it's an unfair screening process, Levin said, and attaches more value to people's online identities -- and sometimes third-party information -- than the candidate they meet in real life.
"We need to suppress that tendency to go on Google and look people up. There's already a process of hiring that works for them and has been working for years," Levin said.
While we're more likely to trust a direct source and treat gossip with skepticism in the offline world, the same can't be said of online information.
Pruning online identities and putting a person's best cyber-foot forward are services offered by companies such as DefendMyName, a personal PR service which posts positive information about a client and pushes down negative links in Google. ReputationDefender also destroys libelous, private or outdated content.
"A resume is no longer what you send to your employer," said ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik. "More people look at Google as a resume."
But instead of authenticating information found online, people are trusting secondary material and treating Google like God.
"What happens is in a court of law, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Internet though, many decisions are based on lower standards," Fertik said.
But is sanitizing a person's online reputation of unflattering content an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
"Only if you believe Google is the best and most accurate source of information," Fertik said. "But I don't think Google is God. I believe Google is a machine."
vivian.song@sunmedia.ca
More like Casebook
Social networking sites can sometimes make or break a case in court
Be careful what you post on Facebook or MySpace, because anything you say or upload can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Last year, for example, an Ottawa court heard that a civil servant had started a clandestine affair with an old friend she reconnected with through Facebook during a messy custody battle involving three kids.
In a Vancouver courtroom last month, defendants in a personal injury case produced photos from the plaintiff's Facebook profile showing that while Myla Bagasbas was seeking $40,000 in damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment after a car accident, she was still able to kayak, hike and bike post-accident.
"Facebook will be seen as a gold mine for evidence in court cases," said Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in ethics, law and technology at the University of Ottawa.
But it will also challenge the courts to further define the notion of personal privacy. In a precedent-setting case this year, a Toronto judge ordered that a man suing for physical injury in a car accident be cross-examined on the contents of his private Facebook profile. Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned a previous court decision that called the defendant's request to look for incriminating evidence a "fishing expedition."
The very nature of Facebook is to share personal information with others, Brown wrote, and is likely to contain relevant information about how the plaintiff, John Leduc, had led his life since the accident. But if Leduc's profile is private with restricted access, is that considered an invasion of privacy?
"The courts sometimes don't get it," Kerr said. "The tendency in judicial opinion and popular thinking is that once something is out in the public, there's no such thing as privacy anymore. But that can't be right because we all have curtains."
For Facebook users, those curtains are our privacy settings. If our home is our castle, Facebook should also be considered a walled domain, Kerr said.
For example, while a member may post pictures from a beer bash the night before, that doesn't mean they would take the same pictures to show off to their boss the next day, Kerr explained.
Likewise, in Murphy versus Perger, a judge ordered that the plaintiff, who was suing for claims of personal injury and loss of enjoyment of life after a car accident, produce copies of her Facebook pages showing photos of her engaging in social activities. In her judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady wrote "The plaintiff could not have a serious expectation of privacy given that 366 people have been granted access to the private site."
But having 366 Facebook friends doesn't entitle the rest of the world to view personal information meant only for certain eyes, said Avner Levin, director of the Privacy Institute at Toronto's Ryerson University.
"It's not how many people you share it with, it's who you choose to share the information with," Levin said. "The judge is missing the point. What's important is not how many people are your friends, but who you choose to know you."
While we're able to compartmentalize and separate people in our lives offline by assigning titles to different spheres -- co-workers, neighbours, family -- the online world fails to recognize those distinctions, he added.
It's a habit that spills over in the job hunt as well. Employers admit they rely heavily on information they glean about a candidate from Google searches and networking profile pages. But it's an unfair screening process, Levin said, and attaches more value to people's online identities -- and sometimes third-party information -- than the candidate they meet in real life.
"We need to suppress that tendency to go on Google and look people up. There's already a process of hiring that works for them and has been working for years," Levin said.
While we're more likely to trust a direct source and treat gossip with skepticism in the offline world, the same can't be said of online information.
Pruning online identities and putting a person's best cyber-foot forward are services offered by companies such as DefendMyName, a personal PR service which posts positive information about a client and pushes down negative links in Google. ReputationDefender also destroys libelous, private or outdated content.
"A resume is no longer what you send to your employer," said ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik. "More people look at Google as a resume."
But instead of authenticating information found online, people are trusting secondary material and treating Google like God.
"What happens is in a court of law, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Internet though, many decisions are based on lower standards," Fertik said.
But is sanitizing a person's online reputation of unflattering content an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
"Only if you believe Google is the best and most accurate source of information," Fertik said. "But I don't think Google is God. I believe Google is a machine."
vivian.song@sunmedia.ca
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Is Twitter the New Google?
Source: ReputationDefender Blog
Unless you’ve been under a rock or in some cave for the last year you’ve probably heard of Twitter. Put succinctly, Twitter is a 140 character micro-blogging service that allows you to follow other people on the network, and have them follow you in return. Really no different from any other blog-type service or network except for the 140 character limitation and the embedded follow and display functions that display on the user’s page.
Recently Twitter added a new level of functionality to its site, incorporating a search feature into the main page. The development had been announced in February, and many in the industry see the move as a step towards profitability and –possibly– a threat to Google’s status as the Lord of the Search Engines.
While Twitter is not at present a direct threat to Google, the addition of search functionality does put it squarely in the same arena as Facebook and Google. In addition to the search function, (which, it should be noted was always available at search.twitter.com, but as of March 6th has appeared on more user pages) Twitter is also adding a “trends” function that will display the most popular recent topics of site traffic. No doubt, Google and Facebook, which have both been looking for ways to expand their efforts in the social networking sphere, will take a long look at this development to see if they can innovate, copy or destroy.
“A search function offers opportunities to sell online advertising. For years there’s been a notion of capturing eyeballs and, once you have them on the site, leveraging that relationship for additional revenues,” Charles King, an analyst with Pund-IT Research, said in an interview. “I can see how it would work for certain people in an organization, but it can suck the time out of your day,” King said. “It’s not quite a defined benefit yet.”
Twitter has risen in prominence very rapidly, but with the increased popularity has come a few issues, particularly concerns over phishing vulnerabilities. Last year there was a widely-reported Twitter-based phishing campaign designed to steal account data with promises of an iPhone. Biz Stone, Twitter’s co-founder, cautioned that privacy issues surrounding text messages may arise in connection with Twitter in the future.
Recently Twitter added a new level of functionality to its site, incorporating a search feature into the main page. The development had been announced in February, and many in the industry see the move as a step towards profitability and –possibly– a threat to Google’s status as the Lord of the Search Engines.
While Twitter is not at present a direct threat to Google, the addition of search functionality does put it squarely in the same arena as Facebook and Google. In addition to the search function, (which, it should be noted was always available at search.twitter.com, but as of March 6th has appeared on more user pages) Twitter is also adding a “trends” function that will display the most popular recent topics of site traffic. No doubt, Google and Facebook, which have both been looking for ways to expand their efforts in the social networking sphere, will take a long look at this development to see if they can innovate, copy or destroy.
“A search function offers opportunities to sell online advertising. For years there’s been a notion of capturing eyeballs and, once you have them on the site, leveraging that relationship for additional revenues,” Charles King, an analyst with Pund-IT Research, said in an interview. “I can see how it would work for certain people in an organization, but it can suck the time out of your day,” King said. “It’s not quite a defined benefit yet.”
Twitter has risen in prominence very rapidly, but with the increased popularity has come a few issues, particularly concerns over phishing vulnerabilities. Last year there was a widely-reported Twitter-based phishing campaign designed to steal account data with promises of an iPhone. Biz Stone, Twitter’s co-founder, cautioned that privacy issues surrounding text messages may arise in connection with Twitter in the future.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Sue Scheff: ReputationDefender - My Good Name Protector ReputationDefender Raises $2.6M In 1st Round
Redwood City's ReputationDefender has raised $2.6M in 1st-round funding. The startup aims to sell online name-monitoring and protection services. The idea is that with all the social networks, blogs, etc. it is getting more and more common to find pictures or comments of oneself on the net. ReputationDefender pitches plans to get such comments taken down.
ReputationDefender says it made $1.2M in revenue in 2007. It sells four versions of its web reputation management services: MyChild, MyReputation, MyPrivacy and MyEdge. Services include a monthly report on what is said about a customer on the Internet and they can pay to have ReputationDefender help take negative items down or put up positive information.
Read entire article here.
ReputationDefender says it made $1.2M in revenue in 2007. It sells four versions of its web reputation management services: MyChild, MyReputation, MyPrivacy and MyEdge. Services include a monthly report on what is said about a customer on the Internet and they can pay to have ReputationDefender help take negative items down or put up positive information.
Read entire article here.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Podcast on Keeping Kids Safe in Cyberspace
On Tuesday, June 17th Dr. Paul featured Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation Defender. If you are a parent of a child that surfs online - this is an important Podcast for your to listen to.
Michael Fertik is a repeat Internet entrepreneur and CEO with experience in technology and law. After law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. His company, Reputation Defender, helps parents to know what is online about their children, and provides services to find and eliminate potentially dangerous or damaging content.June17th Call
On this call, Michael discusses some important information and resources to help parents become more proactive about knowing what is out there about their family, and doing something about it.
Click here to listen: http://parentalpower.wordpress.com/
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Sue Scheff - Internet Abuse - Podcasts!
Coming soon, my Podcasts website www.suescheffpodcasts.com will be updated with The Rachael Ray Show and The Cyber Savvy Show with Erika Marie Geiss.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Sue Scheff - The Rachael Ray Show on Cyber Slander and more
Sue Scheff continues to be a voice against CyberSlander. As both a victim and survivor of Internet Defamation, she has become a leader in promoting Cyber Safety.On April 17th Sue Scheff appeared on the Rachael Ray Show talking about Cyber Slander and promoting her upcoming new book - Wit’s End!Free Speech will never condone defamation.
In an unprecedented jury verdict for damages, Scheff was awarded over $11Mfor the malicious and defamatory online comments from a woman that wanted E-Venge.For more articles on E-Venge - check out http://www.suescheffpodcasts.com/.
Sue Scheff retained the priceless services of Reputation Defender.If you are a victim of Internet Abuse, take a moment to review the services Reputation Defender has to offer.If you are a parent, it is important to consider Reputation Defender MyChild to help protect your child online.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sue Scheff featured on CBC News Television
CBC News Television - Sunday Morning News Magazine
How can you fight back when your personal information - whether true or false - ends up on the Internet for everyone to see, like a potential employer, for example? We give you tips on protecting your reputation online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
