Vitamin T

Social Networking Services – Are They Safe?

At some point in time I’m sure you’ve been asked to fill out a Plaxo card, join Friendster.com or been contacted to fill out some sort of information form to join a group or provide someone with your contact information. Participating in these activities may be a great away to organize your contacts or build social or profession networks, but is there a cost to your own privacy?

Some of the services, such as LinkedIn try to develop a chain of trust. Everyone is related by degrees. A friend who invites you into her network is one degree from you in your network - you know her directly. All of her first-degree contacts are two degrees from you, and you can request introductions to those second-degree contacts via your friend. Your personal network within LinkedIn extends all the way out to those with whom you have fourth-degree relationships, but introductions can only be made, requested, or passed along via first-degree relationships. Anyone can decline to make an introduction to anyone else along the way. But even via this chain of trust, your information can get disseminated very quickly.

As the social networking software market heats up, there continues to be privacy issues surrounding these services. Drummond Reed, CTO of Seattle-based Cordance Corp. is quoted in a NewsForge article by Roger Smith as saying, “There can't be a social Web without ensuring that every user can effectively control the dissemination and use of their personal data. The social networking sites all agree to that -- they take great pains to let every user control their links. Now what we need is an open protocol for doing this everywhere, just like IP and the Web."

Alan T. Saracevic mentions push back from friends concerned about privacy in his article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Are these networks doomed to fail if people are hesitant about sharing personal information? This does not seem to be the case as these companies offering social networking software are flourishing, but who knows what the future holds.

Are you willing to join these networks to build up your contacts or are you fearful of the privacy risks? Share your thoughts.

- Pamela Klores, Reichert Communications

Etiquette? That's So 19th Century

Technology has constantly changed the way people communicate; from the Telegraph to the invention of the Telephone, technology made communication faster. Now technology allows that fast communication in a variety of different formats--Instant Messenger, Email, as well as the Phone. Business has adapted to these technologies and, whether you know it or not, when you use these communications tools you behave in a different manner for each.

Instant Messenger (IM) – Short, quick, informal. When using this method of communication the response is immediate and there is no expectation of formality. This is also the biggest drawback as you can’t expect to have a long detailed conversation over IM, even if you can type so fast that your keyboard smokes. IM is best used to for securing small bits of information quickly. Take a look at CNET to see a review of the most used IM products.

Email—Formal, detailed, easily archived. Email is the most formal method of communication. Even if you’re heavily into emoticons :) conveying tone of voice in an email is impossible, as a result, communication over email is very formal and neutral. It is also easily retrievable, even by a computer novice, for reference at a later date.

Phone – Personal, formal. This tried and true technology is the most personal of the three and in many ways the most time consuming. When you reach the person live there is a ritual to phone communication with business colleagues involving asking how they are, taking a moment for chit-chat, and only then getting to the point of the call. If you don’t take the time to observe the formalities you risk alienating the person on the other end.

Pay attention the next time you send an email or IM or call someone. Do you find yourself falling into these same patterns?

- Madge Miller, Reichert Communications

Cutting the Wire - Getting rid of your landline phone

Gartner announced recently that up to 10 percent of the nation’s 170 million cell phone customers have given up their land lines. I got rid of my landline 4 years ago and have been happy with being cell only since. I have a one number where my contacts can reach me, rather I’m at home, work, or out and about. I also have one less monthly bill to worry about and if you’re “In” I can talk to you with free airtime anytime regardless of you being in another state which saves me from long distance bills. Not to mention, I never get telemarketers harassing me. Knock on wood!

But not everyone shares my enthusiasm. The analyst firm surveyed 294 cellular customers who along with their cell phone still have their traditional phone service. Of those surveyed, 27% said poor quality of cell service kept them from making the change with 21% blaming costs.

Don’t get me wrong I have the occasional blocks and drops but overall the quality of my service is outstanding. I’m also lucky to get superb service at my home.  The costs associated with paying for one phone bill opposed to two saves me at least $30 per month.

However, dropping your landline isn’t for everyone especially families who use their landline as the central point of contact for the household, which AP reporter Michael J. Martinez outlines in a recent article.  And there are risks such as what happens in the case of emergencies. In the same article, Martinez answers a reader’s question regarding the dropping of their landline service. He refers to the Gartner study and also outlines the pros and cons of not having a landline phone.

- Meghan O'Driscoll, Reichert Communications