Answer Guy Central

I’m all for privacy.

To be honest, privacy is a relatively new phenomenon sociologically and absent issues like identity theft and stealing from other simply by having their private data and knowing how to misuse it privacy shouldn’t really be that big a deal; just don’t do anything you’re ashamed of. But in the Internet / electronic age there’s a need to protect information. Privacy matters.

But as anyone who knows anything about the technological practicalities of privacy will tell you, there’s really no such thing; data systems will always get breached, and the best path to privacy isn’t about technology so much as knowing how technology you create will get used, and by whom.

Yeah, yeah . . . stop using Facebook right now. And with the US Library of Congress having just decided to start archiving the entire stream of everything that goes through Twitter, you’d better be really careful what you slap up there unless you don’t care about privacy.

Of course, you’re not going to stop tweeting, friending people, or anything like that, and from a business perspective you can’t. So you move on, hopefully at least a little bit aware of the potential consequences of your actions.

Here’s a new one to watch out for: the United State Congress is trying to pass a law that makes it illegal to send out fake information about your phone.

Constitutionality/free speech issues notwithstanding (and speaking as a non-attorney I suspect that most legal scholars would discount free speech as not applying to this issue), this is a law that looks like one more ineffectual band-aid. Simple reason: it doesn’t apply in a way that couldn’t be easily circumnavigated by any second-year law student.

The legislation would only outlaw the use of spoofing technology when the intent is to deceive and harm the recipient of the call

<Sigh>

All those who believe they have the definition of “deceive and harm”, please step forward.

As is the case with so many laws and rules, there’s a tremendous amount left open to interpretation. But data by definition needs to be tightly defined, and all this or any law that attempts to regulate the use of data without specifically outlining what’s acceptable for its use (as opposed to what isn’t) is going to do is create new loopholes that exploitative types will happily step through in defense of their own actions.

So, please: watch your data carefully (we can help). Don’t (for example) mask your caller ID information or change it to something else just because you can; it’s wrong.

Most important, be sure that when you create business process you’ve actually created process. Otherwise, like Congress’ new data spoofing law on privacy, you’re just being counterproductive.

I’ve picked on the iPad a few times. From the moment it was announced, the iPad looked to me like a brain-dead solution in search of a problem, and when Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal announced its pricing for reading WSJ on the iPad I told you how ridiculous it was, and why. I was hoping I was done; it’s almost like the iPad was created to carry a big “kick me” sign.

I’m not.

Jay Rosen, esteemed professor of journalism at NYU, made a point on His Twitter Page yesterday. Here it is:

No copy and paste, no links and no comments when you’re reading the WSJ and NYT on their iPad apps http://jr.ly/yic4 Explain the thinking…

I can’t, unless I go with something very simple: What may be the two most influential newspapers in world just don’t care what their readers think.

I’ve commented before on issues like this. The New York Times (and many other), for example, has a longstanding policy of using the “NoFollow” tag to withhold credit for posts from people who comment on their web site, and  CNet has actually asked me to give my opinion of and contribute to their content, but not identify myself.

The Internet doesn’t work that way. Or at least it hasn’t. And I’m concerned: the iPad is looking more and more like the chance that really big businesses have been looking for to control what happens on the Internet at the expense of free speech and the greater good.

Ironic that the very people who would be loudest in defending THEIR right to free speech are now becoming the ones looking to stifle it for everyone else.

Now I’m a business guy, and I too prefer that you pay attention to me instead of anyone else, so I understand the driving business change forces in play here. I even teach other people how to make that happen for their businesses. But something about making both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal locked-down countries really, really bothers me.

Tell me what you think.

President Obama is in a war or words with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I find it unseemly, but that’s not important.

I bring up the subject because I happened across this article in today’s New York Times, and attached to it was a (slightly off-topic) comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling of last January that essentially gave corporations the right to make unlimited campaign contributions. And it asked a reasonable enough question:

If Corporations and People Are The Same Thing, Do Corporations have the Right to Bear Arms?

I referred to this Supreme Court Ruling in a recent post, and now I’m thinking: why is it so important to pick the correct business structure? Are Corporations really the same as people? The Right To Bear Arms example shows pretty clearly that the answer, if there is one, is “no”. But legally, corporations enjoy the same rights as people, don’t they?

A corporation and a person aren’t really the same thing, for a simple reason; it’s illegal to kill a person, but the board of directors of a corporation can end its life any time.

That said: our laws say a corporation has the same rights as a person, so until that changes (not gonna happen!), we work within the system to create change. Business change in this context looks something like defining what “the right to bear arms”—or any other right, for that matter—means to your business.

Who says Twitter does nothing important?

For the record (again), I think Twitter is one of the silliest things, ever. It adds very little to anyone’s life, almost anywhere, and is really only useful as a marketing tool.

Now: everyone please sign up for a Twitter account, and show the National Football League what you think of them.

If you’re not a sports fan this may mean nothing to you, but if you’ve ever watched sports on TV or listened on the radio you’re familiar with the phrase “unauthorized use of the pictures, descriptions and accounts of this game without the express written consent of . . .” . Now, Twitter will be the test ground for what that really means. Facebook, too.

The NFL, notoriously aggressive in protecting their assets (ever notice how commercials always refer to The Super Bowl as “the big game”?), has issued rules that prohibit players and basically anyone associated with players from tweeting, not only during games, but for 90 minutes after games end.

If this were about on-field conduct, I could see it. But it isn’t. The NFL is literally trying to prevent anyone from speaking (OK, typing) in a way that might lower the resale value of broadcast rights for their games.

I think I want to go watch a football game at a bar, stand outside and tell passers-by what’s happening, because that’s what talking about a game on Twitter or Facebook amounts to.

Chad Ochocinco? Terrell Owens? Are you listening?