The study, which examined the perceptions and adoption of new technologies among federal government decision makers, indicated the perception of technology adoption in government agencies as “ as slow and difficult to keep going.”

Market Connections conducted the survey in February on behalf of the Government Information Technology Council (GITEC). GITEC is a group of senior-level government executives organized to support the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective IT services to their customers.

“The findings show real progress in some emerging technology and application areas. But technology engines don’t seem to be revving to keep up with needs,” said Lisa Dezzutti, president of Market Connections.

“When asked if innovations have found their way into daily applications, more federal decision-makers compare their agencies to vintage cars rather than today’s hybrids.”

The majority of the 223 survey respondents serve in management, operations, or IT/MIS roles, with 39% of them employed in defense/military agencies and 61% employed in federal civilian or independent agencies.

Highlights from the survey include:

*Wireless/mobile solutions and cloud computing were cited most often as technologies that, while beneficial or promising, remain the most overlooked. In fact, nearly three-quarters of respondents were either unsure if their agency has a cloud deployment plan or very clear that it doesn’t have a plan.
*Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents said their agencies are perpetually behind the technology curve compared to the private sector, while another 39% say that old legislation negatively impacts their agencies’ adoption of new technologies.
*Budget limitations narrowly outpace security concerns as the top two challenges confronting the implementation of upcoming technology initiatives. In fact, 18% reported that general hardware and software updates were the most beneficial new or innovative technologies implemented in the last 12 months.
*Nearly three in ten respondents say their agencies are not actively engaging Gen Y in the workforce; however, more than a quarter are offering competitive salaries and benefits, providing flexible work environments and increased coaching and training, respectively.

“Unfortunately, companies and institutions of all sizes are vulnerable to serious P2P-related breaches, placing consumers’ sensitive information at risk. For example, we found health-related information, financial records, and drivers’ license and social security numbers–the kind of information that could lead to identity theft,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

“Companies should take a hard look at their systems to ensure that there are no unauthorized P2P file-sharing programs and that authorized programs are properly configured and secure. Just as important, companies that distribute P2P programs, for their part, should ensure that their software design does not contribute to inadvertent file sharing.”

The FTC said organizations that receive the letters should review their security practices and consider notifying affected customers and employees. Many states and federal regulatory agencies have laws or guidelines about businesses’ notification responsibilities in these circumstances.

The latest country to join a long list of states with women leaders is Costa Rica: in the presidential election conducted yesterday, the winner by a comfortable margin is Laura Chinchilla Miranda, the first woman to become head of state in this Central American republic.

Chinchilla’s victory also vividly demonstrates democracy in action in a country that’s in a part of the world where such freedom of expression has a pretty poor track record over the years – with Costa Rica being a notable exception.

I lived in Costa Rica during most of the 80s, and so it’s a place that still has close interest for me (family and friends there, too). What I found especially interesting about this presidential election is the role of social networks like Twitter and Facebook and how people used them during the election period including voting day yesterday.

According to a concise report in La Nación, Costa Rica’s most influential newspaper, such social networks played a big role in how people shared comment and opinion. Here’s my loose translation from La Nación’s Spanish-language report, “Redes sociales también vivieron esta elección”:

Minute by minute, many people followed everything connected with the elections held yesterday via Twitter and Facebook.

For most of the day, “ votocr” (the hashtag used on Twitter to address this issue) was the most-used word on Twitter in the Spanish language. [What I’d describe as a ‘trending topic.’]

Costa Ricans used Twitter mainly to discuss the news, but also to report on the atmosphere at polling stations. Some posted photographs.

While there were no definitive numbers at press time, at certain times of the day nearly 1,000 messages were posted on Twitter every hour with information on the elections in Costa Rica.

[…] La Nación’s Facebook profile recorded about 250 comments at press time. The presidential candidates (in particular, Laura Chinchilla, Otton Solis and Otto Guevara) also generated participation within their own profiles through various news and comments made during the day.

Not only individuals used Twitter but also institutions such as the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Costa Rica’s electoral authority, which tweeted updates of voting count estimates after the polls closed.

A good example of a country where freedom of expression is the norm and people can make use of whatever communication channels they want to and are able to access. According to Internet World Stats, Costa Rica has the highest internet penetration in Central America at over one-third of the population.

Comments

It appears that Facebook is subscribing to the same policy as it relates to their privacy policies since they made privacy an after thought by opening up the Facebook world to the everyone else in the world by default. As one might expect, privacy advocates like EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) don’t like the direction this is heading so they wrote a complaint to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and MediaPost tells us the result:

In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook “raises issues of particular interest for us at this time.”

Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can’t currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.

The FTC’s consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.

“As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply,” Vladeck wrote. “The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information.”

While these things often are a lot of bluster and noise from government agencies one has to suspect that with the current administration’s desire to control every aspect of everything for everybody this will get some attention for sure. One thing most companies like to avoid is being investigated by the Feds but it could very well be a part of Facebook’s future. They have already capitulated to the demands of the Canadian government so the precedent is in place for Facebook to have to do something different if there is significant pressure and the right threats coming from Washington.

To get the ball rolling a complaint was filed.

Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook’s new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms.

This is in addition to Mark Zuckerberg’s redefinition of privacy in the online world, in which he essentially said that everyone now knows that there is not much privacy on the Internet and as a result the once super private Facebook should open it’s policies so that everyone can “share”. (I am SO glad that I have someone like Mark Zuckerberg who is so wise and all knowing to make that decision for me. How about you?). The net result is being arrogant enough to attract the attention and potential ire of the Feds. Oh well.

Lastly there has been an alleged Facebook anonymous employee who puts words to what those in the know likely assumed but those who have no clue would not be too thrilled with by saying

In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users’ messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. “We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you’re tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth,” the employee allegedly added.

Facebook’s response?

Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC’s latest filing “offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make.”

So will 2010 be Facebook’s year of privacy? If it is, it is off to a bit of a rocky start.

Comments

The biggest concerns of the Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Watchdog include decreasing competition in the mobile ad market and consumer privacy. The groups say that together, Google and AdMob would control most of the mobile ad market. AdMob is already the leader in the market, thought there’s lots of competition in that area. However, with backing from the search engine, it’s possible that AdMob could come to dominate their arena just as Google pwns theirs.

The second argument is based on the fact that Google and AdMob both collect considerable information about their users. Together, that information may be a threat to consumers’ privacy, with the two entities sharing everything from searching habits to location data. The groups’ full filing with the FTC is embedded below.

It’s easy to understand the appeal for Google, though—with AdMob “approaching a $100M business in the next three years,” as TC puts it, this could be the way for Google to stake their claim in the emerging mobile market.

CW and the CDD often make this type of filing on Google’s acquisitions, and it doesn’t always seem to have an effect. But with the FTC already taking a harder look, their word may have that much more sway with the regulators this time around.

LtrFTCfinal –

What do you think? How much influence will CW & the CDD have this time? Will the FTC ultimately okay the deal?

Comments

I think the thing that annoys me the most is that it really screws up a decent story to constantly be disclosing. It feels like the blogging equivalent of TMI (my daughter has explained to me that means “too much information”).

So, I’d like to tell you the story about what Telstra did. Not because they are a Converseon client, but because it is cool. And this isn’t a story that shills for Converseon, because Converseon didn’t create this cool learning module. Converseon didn’t create the content. [Full disclosure: Telstra is a Converseon client and Converseon did provide advice for this project.] But it’s safer for you to scroll back up and read the Mashable story or Telstra’s own blog post and look at the module yourself.

The truth is that Telstra is a Converseon client but they are a really smart client. The story is not about Converseon–it’s about Telstra. They wanted to do this and they did it. It’s only the FTC that causes me tell this story mentioning the name Converseon more than Telstra because I don’t want anyone to think that I am trying to shill Converseon. I think it is a more honest and more compelling story if Converseon were never mentioned.

But I know that is unrealistic. I know that even without the FTC rules, I would have disclosed that Telstra is a Converseon client and that I work for Converseon. And I’m not sure what to do about that. I know that openness and transparency and full disclosure are all good. I know that it’s important for readers to understand all the relationships and entanglements of the blogger to be able to evaluate the credibility of the information from that blogger. And I don’t even begrudge the FTC’s rules–everyone isn’t as scrupulous about this stuff as I have been, I know.

But I do miss just being able to tell a good story, even if I happen to know the story because I work with the subject of the story. Instead, I wait for Mashable to tell the story so that when I bring it up it has Mashable’s credibility, in case you doubt mine in this situation.

I don’t know what to do about any of this. I am just noticing that we are losing something here and I don’t think we are going to get it back.

Comments

Whatever your stance, one thing that is abundantly clear is that it’s not that big a deal.

So what if the FTC have turned their gaze towards social media, and bloggers in particular? There’s a key word that everyone should already be adhering to anyway.

Honesty.

No-one likes a liar, and even less so if it’s lies tied around advertising. This is where both publishers and advertisers can take the sting out of the new FTC rulings.

• If you’re a blogger and you receive goods for review, or in lieu of a promotional campaign, then be honest and say so. Disclose – don’t assume that every reader already knows you’re worthy of our trust. And have a Disclosure Page with all your current affiliations.
• If you’re an advertiser and you offer a blogger a product for review, make sure that it’s part of the agreement that they’re upfront about it. It’s not just the blogger that’ll get crapped on if it comes out your review was paid for and it wasn’t disclosed.

Think of it as your business. Would you lie to your customers? Would you put money over how you treat those that make you successful?

A blogger’s customers are his or her readers. While they might not pay us for our posts, they sure as heck invest more than their value in time when they read, comment and share our posts.

And an advertiser’s customers – well, that’s pretty obvious, but at the end of the day they still need to be treated with the utmost respect and honesty. Just because you can hide behind a blogger doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to shit in the store.

So.

FTC and social media = good thing and nothing to worry about. As long as you’re honest.

Thing is, shouldn’t it already be this way?

Comments

What’s truly scary about the cyber threats our country faces is how ill prepared we are to handle them. The GAO report goes into detail about where our vulnerabilities lie, “Compounding the growing number and kinds of threats, GAO—along with agencies and their inspectors general—has identified significant weaknesses in the security controls on federal information systems, resulting in pervasive vulnerabilities. These include deficiencies in the security of financial systems and information and vulnerabilities in other critical federal information systems. GAO has identified weaknesses in all major categories of information security controls at federal agencies. For example, in fiscal year 2008, weaknesses were reported in such controls at 23 of 24 major agencies.”

McAfee reported on the US, and other countries’ lack of readiness for cyberwarfare. The report has some candid words for impending cyberwarfare, likening the problem to that of a ‘cyber-Cold War’. An interesting point made by McAfee report states that cyberwarfare is an equalizer, as very little funding is needed to successfully implement an attack - compared to directly attacking an actual nation.

The idea of cyberwarfare is a scary proposition, and what’s just as worrisome is the government’s seeming ineptitude towards the situation. The current laws we have protecting our cyberspace aren’t adequate enough to address the evolving problems. In response to this our government has had troubles devising new solutions.

There’s an argument about what measures the US should take in combating cyber threats. There are those who believe the government should mandate cyber security efforts in the private sector. The detractors believe this to be a practice going against the idea of privacy, and overall national interest. Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said this of the matter, “Federally mandated cybersecurity standards not only would not work, but they would be seriously counterproductive to our national economic interests and our national security interests”

The practice of cyberware isn’t something that is going to just disappear. Like it has this past decade, cyber threats will continue to evolve and bypass current security standards. Therefore, it’s vital that we adapt and evolve as well. Let’s hope the pleas of the GAO don’t go unnoticed, “Multiple opportunities exist to enhance cybersecurity. In light of weaknesses in agencies’ information security controls, GAO and inspectors general have made hundreds of recommendations to improve security, many of which agencies are implementing.”

Thanks in part to the finger-pointing of AT&T, Google has to answer the accusations that it does not connect calls to certain rural areas. AT&T believes this is unfair–Google should be made to connect calls to any location, regardless of how expensive it is to the company–but Google is firing back, claiming that it’s only blocking calls to obvious “traffic pumping” numbers.

Now, Google has gone one step further. In a letter to the FCC, it claims it has isolated less than 100 numbers that are responsible for the practice, and is now only blocking those specific numbers. If you’re short on time, here’s the pertinent text from Google’s letter:

In June 2009, Google Voice began noticing extremely high cost calls to a concentrated number of destinations. Our internal investigation revealed that the top 10 prefixes to U.S. destinations (NPA-NXX) accounted for l.l percent of our monthly U.S. traffic by volume – an unusually large number, and some 161 times the expected amount by prefix. In tum, this traffic accounted for 26.2 percent of our monthly U.S. cost – again, an unexpectedly large number. In addition to these grossly anomalous call patterns (which include the frequency and duration of calls to rural areas), we also were aware through various industry sources of certain in-bound traffic stimulation practices, and the identities and locations of some of the carriers in question. Many of these businesses are located in rural areas with local carriers that charge unusually high rates for terminating traffic. Our own underlying carriers would assess Google Voice up to 39 cents per minute for some of this interstate traffic. As a result, based on an application of these data filters to the total universe of our outbound traffic, in August 2009 Google Voice began the practice of restricting calls to certain high-cost destinations. Currently, fewer than 100 U.S. telephone numbers are restricted based on an application of these filters.

For a couple of technology giants, they sure are good at tennis. The ball is now back in AT&T’s court!

Comments

He reports that he nearly tweeted about a delicious bass halibut he cooked this weekend—until he remembered he’d received the cookbook for free review 13 years ago. But the real issue isn’t restricting his free fish speech. It’s

the implication that online social media represent a separate class of communications channels with less Constitutional protection than corporate-owned newspapers, radio stations, or cable television networks is of particularly grave concern.

[We] are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. . . . Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.

All of us would agree that false and deceptive advertising should be stopped, and penalized when it slips through and is caught. We agree that paid testimonials and endorsements should be labeled. But in taking business ethics and attempting to give it the force of law, the Commission is stretching the definition of remuneration to ludicrous lengths. (emphasis added)

Another interesting take against the FTC guidelines is the fact that book and product bloggers may not give guaranteed access. Unlike in advertising, where you pay for not only airtime but craft the message yourself, in product reviews, you often have no control over when (or even if) the review will be posted, and what the review will say.

(On the other hand, plenty of bloggers will guarantee access simply for shipping a product to them, and plenty of PR and marketing people sign up people for a blog tour slot before sending them a product to guarantee their participation.)

Personally, I’ve received things like books, diapers and paper towels for review on my blog. Not all of them have made it onto a blog, however. It’s hard to imagine Bounty (I can’t even remember if it was them who sent it, but close enough) being fined $11,000 for a review of two rolls of paper towels (you know, <$2 of merchandise).

On the other hand, the FTC is especially concerned with an ongoing relationship—like if you review one publisher’s (free) books a lot. (But at some point, doesn’t the fact that they’re free kind of diminish the impact on your review over time? I mean, after the fifth free book, is it even that big of a deal to get another?)

It’s not going to hurt a book review or a product review to disclose that you got a free one to read/try. It may influence how your readers think about your review—it may influence how you thought about the product, whether you’d like to admit it or not.

What do you think? Should there be some sort of lower limit on the value of products that bloggers must disclose? Should bloggers be more concerned with disclosing relationships? Should the FTC be more concerned with newspapers et al., even though the way they do things is well-established?

Comments