Google Bomb, the book, will be in your favorite bookstores September 1, 2009.
Check out the new animation review of our upcoming best-selling new book!
YouTube Debut Click Here: http://bit.ly/14ma3I
Showing posts with label cyber profile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cyber profile. Show all posts
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sue Scheff: Google Bomb Book Debuts on YouTube
Check out the new animation review of our upcoming best-selling new book!
YouTube Debut Click Here: http://bit.ly/14ma3I
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
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Sue Scheff: Google Bomb: Expert Solutions to Protect Yourself from Online Attacks and Maintain a Searchable Image
Pre-Order Google Bomb on Amazon.com today!
Our society has reached an all-time low. Simple keystrokes can now literally ruin lives, reputations, and cause years of suffering, and require exorbitant amounts of time, money, and sanity to rebuild a life and/or career that has been shattered by cyberbullying, Internet defamation, identity theft, privacy invasion, and so much more. There is even a term that has emerged into our lexicon that describes the practice of manipulating the ranking of web pages: Google Bomb.
Sue Scheff knows first hand about the devastating effects of Google bombing and Internet defamation. Her reputation was destroyed and she almost lost her business because of false and libelous statements about her and her business that went viral. Falling into a deep depression accompanied by agoraphobia, Sue could not escape the abusive attacks from strangers and the paranoia that accompanies such abuse. However, she fought back, and sued the figure head who launched the attack campaign and was awarded a jury verdict of $11.3 million--a case that has set the precedent for a massive debate on Internet regulation vs. free speech and Internet etiquette and safety policies.
Because there is so much to navigate and know about the unknown and mostly unchartered legal territories of Internet usage, Sue has rounded up some of the world's most preeminent experts on the newly emerging business of Internet law, including attorney John W. Dozier. In Google™ Bomb, Dozier and Scheff offer a hybrid of memoir and prescriptive self-help, as well as a timely call to action that will arm readers with what they can do to avoid falling victim to cyber abuse, rebuild their own ruined reputations, or avoid unknowingly committing a crime against strangers on the Internet.
Written with two markets in mind: those hundreds of thousands of people who are victims of Internet harassment and cannot afford legal council to help clean up their reputations, and those who have built a career, business, and personal reputation and want to be armed with protection and prevention techniques that will help them avoid falling victim to cyber bullies, hackers, e-vengers, and Phreaks.
The true-life story of Sue Scheff's landmark lawsuit and the lessons she learned coupled with invaluable expert advice from a top Internet legal and reputation defense expert, Google™ Bomb is a heavy-hitting, one-of-a-kind book that will likely spark debate, controversy, and save lives at the same time.
Our society has reached an all-time low. Simple keystrokes can now literally ruin lives, reputations, and cause years of suffering, and require exorbitant amounts of time, money, and sanity to rebuild a life and/or career that has been shattered by cyberbullying, Internet defamation, identity theft, privacy invasion, and so much more. There is even a term that has emerged into our lexicon that describes the practice of manipulating the ranking of web pages: Google Bomb.
Sue Scheff knows first hand about the devastating effects of Google bombing and Internet defamation. Her reputation was destroyed and she almost lost her business because of false and libelous statements about her and her business that went viral. Falling into a deep depression accompanied by agoraphobia, Sue could not escape the abusive attacks from strangers and the paranoia that accompanies such abuse. However, she fought back, and sued the figure head who launched the attack campaign and was awarded a jury verdict of $11.3 million--a case that has set the precedent for a massive debate on Internet regulation vs. free speech and Internet etiquette and safety policies.
Because there is so much to navigate and know about the unknown and mostly unchartered legal territories of Internet usage, Sue has rounded up some of the world's most preeminent experts on the newly emerging business of Internet law, including attorney John W. Dozier. In Google™ Bomb, Dozier and Scheff offer a hybrid of memoir and prescriptive self-help, as well as a timely call to action that will arm readers with what they can do to avoid falling victim to cyber abuse, rebuild their own ruined reputations, or avoid unknowingly committing a crime against strangers on the Internet.
Written with two markets in mind: those hundreds of thousands of people who are victims of Internet harassment and cannot afford legal council to help clean up their reputations, and those who have built a career, business, and personal reputation and want to be armed with protection and prevention techniques that will help them avoid falling victim to cyber bullies, hackers, e-vengers, and Phreaks.
The true-life story of Sue Scheff's landmark lawsuit and the lessons she learned coupled with invaluable expert advice from a top Internet legal and reputation defense expert, Google™ Bomb is a heavy-hitting, one-of-a-kind book that will likely spark debate, controversy, and save lives at the same time.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Sue Scheff: Slimed Online? Look for New Internet Book
Yesterday my co-author, John Dozier and I, announced our exciting new book that will be released in fall 2009 from Health Communications, Inc. Then I read this article that I could really identify with. Slimed Online from Portfolio.com.
Michael Fertik, CEO and Founder of ReputationDefender, was powerful force in helping these women fight for their online image. As a client of ReputationDefender, their services are priceless - although there seems to be many of these services popping up now, as the demand grows, I feel that in my experiences, the pioneer of these online reputation management companies start with ReputatationDefender.
Our new book, Google Bomb, will be a must read for anyone and everyone that works and plays online. From protecting your online profile and reputation, to keeping your kids safe, this new book is a must have - and can potentially help you from being a victim of wicked and evil keystrokes.
Years ago gossip was limited to a geographically area that you live in. Today gossip goes viral worldwide! Your one former friend is now a foe or a few clients out of years of a reputable business have decided to take revenge via e-venge! Take cover, Google Bomb can help you protect yourself.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sue Scheff: Don't Let the Web Kill What You Love
By Michael Fertik
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”Warren Buffett said that, before the invention of the Internet.Now, in the information age, the statement has never been more truthful.That is why I started a business, ReputationDefender, that is all about protecting reputations.Your good name, and the reputations of your family, business, and everything you love, is valuable.So, when your neighbor, a customer, or a love interest plugs your name into a search engine, what will they find?
Anyone can come along and slam you online and if that happens, search results for your name might be dominated by negative, incomplete, or even false information.
A hostile online comment might represent the uncommon experience of a dissatisfied customer or disgruntled neighbor, but due to the structure of search engines, that single opinion can be greatly amplified and made to look like a universal point of view.You might fall victim to the sniping of an anonymous blogger or even a competitor posing as an angry customer.
It’s not only easy to publish half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods on the Internet, it’s also easy to make them stick. Many people who publish negative web content know how to make it maximally destructive.
Lies, rumors, or memes take flight easily, getting repeated, added to, and generally magnified.
Even though some of these narratives are discovered to be false, very few of them get debunked as loudly as they are broadcasted in the first place.As a result, false content often becomes more visible on the web than, say, well-researched articles from reputable news sources.
It might seem illogical that bogus speculation can end up dominating searches for you, but that’s how a rumor mill works.A great strength of the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice.That’s also one of its dangers: it can endow fraudsters and idle speculators with the appearance of authority.
The danger is real. This does not mean you should stop using the Internet.
It means that you must proactively establish your accurate and positive presence on the web before there is a problem.
You need to maximize your control over what people find about you, before someone else does it for you.There are options. Companies have developed software solutions for online reputation protection.
ReputationDefender, which is now a partner with TheStreet.com network, is my company, and we do just that.Michael Fertik is the Founder and CEO of ReputationDefender, the online reputation management and privacy company.
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”Warren Buffett said that, before the invention of the Internet.Now, in the information age, the statement has never been more truthful.That is why I started a business, ReputationDefender, that is all about protecting reputations.Your good name, and the reputations of your family, business, and everything you love, is valuable.So, when your neighbor, a customer, or a love interest plugs your name into a search engine, what will they find?
Anyone can come along and slam you online and if that happens, search results for your name might be dominated by negative, incomplete, or even false information.
A hostile online comment might represent the uncommon experience of a dissatisfied customer or disgruntled neighbor, but due to the structure of search engines, that single opinion can be greatly amplified and made to look like a universal point of view.You might fall victim to the sniping of an anonymous blogger or even a competitor posing as an angry customer.
It’s not only easy to publish half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods on the Internet, it’s also easy to make them stick. Many people who publish negative web content know how to make it maximally destructive.
Lies, rumors, or memes take flight easily, getting repeated, added to, and generally magnified.
Even though some of these narratives are discovered to be false, very few of them get debunked as loudly as they are broadcasted in the first place.As a result, false content often becomes more visible on the web than, say, well-researched articles from reputable news sources.
It might seem illogical that bogus speculation can end up dominating searches for you, but that’s how a rumor mill works.A great strength of the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice.That’s also one of its dangers: it can endow fraudsters and idle speculators with the appearance of authority.
The danger is real. This does not mean you should stop using the Internet.
It means that you must proactively establish your accurate and positive presence on the web before there is a problem.
You need to maximize your control over what people find about you, before someone else does it for you.There are options. Companies have developed software solutions for online reputation protection.
ReputationDefender, which is now a partner with TheStreet.com network, is my company, and we do just that.Michael Fertik is the Founder and CEO of ReputationDefender, the online reputation management and privacy company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
