09th Jan2012

Facebook Owns 95% Of Social Networking Time

by iSpit

Facebook accounts for 95% of social networking time on the web in the U.S. according to an analysis of comScore data provided to us by web publisher Ben Elowitz of Wetpaint.

(We would think this holds for mobile, but it’s possible Twitter has more of a hold there than on the desktop.)

Elowitz’s takeaway from the data: “There’s now no question that ‘social’ means ‘Facebook.’” And if you want to be in front of consumers, you have to figure out a way to be in their Facebook news feed.

This is important for Facebook, since it just announced plans to insert ads into users news feeds. If publishers agree with Elowitz, then it could be the big revenue generator Facebook needs to sustain itself for the next ten years.

22nd Nov2011

Americans Spent 53.5 Billion Minutes On Facebook In May 2011

by iSpit

We’ve heard time and again how time-consuming Facebook can be. Nevertheless, I always find the statistics mind-blowing: Americans spent a total of 53.5 billion minutes on Facebook in May 2011, according to the latest data from Nielsen.

How does this compare to other websites? Well, Americans spent more time on Facebook than on any other website. The competition doesn’t even come close: Yahoo was second with 17.2 billion minutes and Google was third at 12.5 billion minutes.

Let’s do some simple math to figure out how many Facebook minutes are spent, per person. Unfortunately, the company doesn’t release exact numbers for US users, so we’ll have to estimate. Two months ago, Facebook said it had 750 million active users. The social networking giant also says that about 70 percent of its users are outside the US, meaning there are some 225 million US Facebook users.

Nielsen specifically says it counted 140,336,000 Facebook users, however, so we’ll use that number. The calculation thus becomes 53.5 billion minutes divided by 140,336,000 users, divided by the 31 days of the month. Americans spent an average of 12.30 minutes on Facebook every day in May.

Here are some other highlights from the report:

  • Social networks and blogs continue to dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the Internet
  • Tumblr is an emerging player in social media, nearly tripling its audience from a year ago
  • Nearly 40 percent of social media users access social media content from their mobile phone
    Internet users over the age of 55 are driving the growth of social networking through the Mobile Internet
  • 70 percent of active online adult social networkers shop online, 12 percent more likely than the average adult Internet user
  • Across a sample of 10 global markets, social networks and blogs are the top online destination in each country, accounting for the majority of time spent online and reaching at least 60 percent of active Internet users

If you want more information, check out the 14-page report, titled 011. The data is the most recent from Nielsen: it was released today.

17th Nov2011

CIA Monitors Facebook, Twitter: Five Million Tweets A Day

by iSpit

The Associated Press this morning reports an exclusive, explaining how the White House can receive real-time updates on a situation on the ground, leading up to a revolution, predicting crime and disorder, or the ‘mood in the air’ shortly after the death of Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency on a daily basis, out of an “anonymous industrial park in Virginia”, follows over 5 million tweets by users on the ground.

The ‘Open Source Center’, manned by a team the agency affectionately dubs the “vengeful librarians”, also trawls other social networking sites like Facebook, along with Internet chat rooms; all the way down to newspapers and anything that anyone can contribute to openly.

Along with the vast resources of the agency, the real-time information from an angry blog post to a tweet sent from a BlackBerry, location-based data is gathered and tied to a made phone call to collect as much information as possible. This gives those in the highest offices of the U.S. government a specific picture of a certain place, at a certain time, to predict when an event that may cause national instability, diplomatic harm or suchlike could occur.

The report goes on to suggest that the White House, courtesy of the intelligence gathered from the vast array of resources at their disposal, from the publicly-available content provided by citizens and journalists alike, “saw the uprising in Egypt coming”, but they did not know exactly when it would strike.

The facility was set up as a recommended action based on the report by the 9/11 Commission, with many working from the ‘industrial unit’ to U.S. embassies around the world, in a bid to get closer to the action on the ground.

Intelligence services rely on those speaking the specific dialects of difficult-to-understand languages, often those who grew up in the area and emigrated, or those with family still in the region, along with those with a vast array of degrees in specific subjects to formulate guidance based on the intelligence presented to them.

While many have suspected for some time, with the rare utterance of admittance, that the most clandestine intelligence services around the world monitor Facebook and Twitter, blogs and other content on the web, the report explains how “Facebook and Twitter… have become a key resource for following a fast moving crisis”.

By following messages, Facebook status updates and tweets from Bangkok during the recent uprising, journalists were hampered by the rioting and the army moving in, with traditional media slowing to a trickle. Citizen journalism, therefore, was the prime target for the agency, allowing dozens of ‘reporters’ to be honed in on to provide valuable, real-time information on the ground.

04th Oct2011

How To Remove Yourself from People Search Websites

by iSpit

With a quick search of your name on any given “peoplefinder” website, you’ll see your name, date of birth, names of family members, current and past addresses, your phone number and gender. Some sites will also reveal your marital status, your hobbies, your online profiles, and maps or a photo of your house.

Many peoplefinder sites will give up enough to make you choke on your latte without a registration or a fee, so anyone with an internet connection can stalk you from their couch (or office) with about twenty keystrokes.

Scary? Completely.

No, this isn’t a fluff post, and I’m not being paranoid. I just spent weeks investigating the process of having one’s personal data wiped from these sites and interviewing Sarah A. Downey, lawyer and privacy analyst at Abine. Abine is a privacy startup in Cambridge that is in the business of deleting individuals from these sites.

The complicated opt-out procedures are daunting, and now I’m pretty convinced that they’re intentionally intimidating for the average Jane. I discovered Abine through Downey’s popular Reddit post about how to opt-out from people search site BeenVerified. I emailed Downey for an interview after using Abine’s DeleteMe product and trying opt-out tips from Redditors.

In case you’re wondering, this is a pretty scary thing to research and test on yourself. In one instance, I found my home address and a map with a simple search on one of the bigger websites, available without a purchase.

What these sites offer is essentially every woman’s nightmare, on tap.

In preparation for this article, I combined doing my own opt-outs with purchasing Abine’s DeleteMe product. I am in no way affiliated with Downey or Abine.

In my research and estimation, Abine seems to be the primary independent clean-up service. There are other options but I have not had personal experience with them, and before trying them out I’d recommend research and peer reviews, as I’ve noticed that some “reputation” and data privacy services are not what they seem.

For instance, US Search (now owned by peoplesearch giant Intelius) was sued last October by the FTC for promising customers their PrivacyLock service would block customers’ data from public access (PrivacyLock’s own claims to remove individuals from results were false). Reputation.com – aka ReputationDefender – has a partnership with people search service Spokeo, making some people wonder how closely the companies are linked.

As you’re about to read, these “people search” sites would really rather that no one privacy-minded noticed them at all. In fact, getting yourself removed is a complete hassle and as I found out in some cases – it’s not even possible.

Tip #1: Right now it’s unclear whether these sites retain the information you enter into their search boxes; many suspect this is one of the ways they collect data. Avoid typing your info directly into these sites by Googling the site name along with your name.

Your personal information: it’s a fire sale with no limits

So-called “peoplefinder” and “background check” sites paint a rosy picture of being online databases where, for free or a fee, anyone can look up contact information to find relatives, find the owners of lost pets, where nervous online daters can make sure they’re not about to date a felon, and where businesses can check out potential employees. And people do.

These sites are in the business of posting your personal information for anyone to see, and search.

As you’d suspect, they have a much darker use for people with bad intentions. I have experienced this personally, and I’m sure the victims of things like “Porn Wikileaks” have as well.

People search sites get their data from public records and corporations selling your information to them (including third-party fine print agreements you agree to by using businesses such as Facebook and eBay).

Downey explained that one way they get your info is via social networks:

[One common example is] social networking info, which sometimes depends on the site’s TOU regarding sharing info with third parties, as well as your privacy selections on that site (e.g., your Facebook likes and interests, your friends, your tweets, the work information you provide to LinkedIn).

Intelius’ blog underscores the use of social network data. In a post about the acrimony between privacy pundits and data brokers, Intelius stated:

In the midst of a social media phenomenon, consumer advocacy groups show how free basic public records have recently transformed into more robust reports from aggregators like Spokeo.com, who compile a wide range of information, including personal information from social networking sites.

The average consumer, they argue, is unaware of how much of the personal information is online and how it is being used. In a new age of modern permanent records, popular sites like Facebook and Twitter are the face of a hidden world of commercial data brokers.

The bold is mine; I reached out to Intelius asking them to explain that very sentence and Intelius has not responded to request for comment at this time. As an aside, the company they mention, Spokeo, was recently sued for using web tracking technology that allegedly violates Federal privacy laws.

But what about those public records? A “public record” includes anything prepared by a government employee or in furtherance of government records. All public records are accessible through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, both federal and state – and the laws surrounding them vary from state to state.

It’s totally legal to access public records – except the way we access public records has changed since the advent of the internet, and it’s shattered the kind of privacy we all used to enjoy. Abine’s analyst Downey observes:

People search sites argue that they’re merely displaying public record information. I think that’s a bullshit argument, though. As someone for whom the First Amendment is the closest thing I have to religion, even I can see that an industry-specific limitation on only these people search websites wouldn’t have an impact on the First Amendment at large.

Even if something is classified as public record information, we can still limit the context and means in which it’s retrieved. That’s really the issue here: the high visibility and accessibility of the internet has made public records much more public than they ever were before. Perhaps you should still be able to access this information, but you’d have to go to town hall to do it. You could no longer stalk someone on Intelius from your couch.

The many masks of a few shady data dealers

These data dealers can be divided into two broad categories in terms of how they get and distribute their information.

Primary sites are the big dogs of data: they get their information through public record sources, while secondary sites aggregate their information through automated data mining of other sites. Notable primary sites are Intelius, LexisNexis, Spoke, WhitePages, BeenVerified, and DOBSearch.

Intelius, for instance, offers “over 100 intelligence services” including a simple people search that provides a person’s address, phone numbers, and a background report promising to show any criminal activity.

I’m guessing that after reading this far you’re already searching for yourself on some of these sites. You’re probably noticing that there are a lot of inaccuracies – there are. Though there is also enough true information to give anyone a coronary.

Or like me you saw crazy, glaring inaccuracies repeated on different sites. The inaccuracies are often so unfathomable they make you think that your identity has been hijacked, resulting in different names and addresses incorrectly associated with your own – or even criminal records and vocations assigned to your profiles that you know you don’t have in your own history.

Many of these sites are notoriously incorrect and sloppy in their data compilation. Abine’s Downey explains,

The secondary-producer people search sites are aggregators, meaning they collect their information from other people search sites, both primary and secondary, social networks, online accounts, online tracking, blogs, etc. A few notable examples you may be familiar with are Spokeo, Radaris, Yasni, Pipl, and 123People.

They appear to have a much greater wealth and depth of knowledge, but they’re notoriously inaccurate. It’s like they’re playing telephone and they’re much further down the receiving line.

Even big player 008 SEC filing that the information that it and similar companies sell is often inaccurate and out of date.

You can check out anytime you like, but you can’t ever leave

Not surprisingly, these companies don’t make it easy for individuals to opt-out. Some make it seem like you have to register for the site. Or like “Free People Search Engine” Radaris, they actually force you to register and agree to their terms in order to opt-out.

Essentially, you end up giving them your data in the effort to have yourself removed.

Many sites require that you scan and provide your ID, and include onerous procedures such as accepting opt-out request letters only via fax or postal mail. This seems to be a standard.

Tip #2: Never scan and send your ID to anyone without blacking out your photo and ID number.

The opt-out precesses all frustratingly different. While many of the companies are owned by each other, each has its own opt-out procedure and some of the sites don’t even state an opt-out is possible in their front-facing privacy policies.

People search sites don’t like to make opting-out easy. In one instance, Downey resorted to emailing BeenVerified, citing an FTC Act that states it is an unfair trade practice to not allow people to remove their info from databases such as theirs.

As of now, there is no FTC Act that states we have the right to get our names and addresses off these sites; what the current Act does say is that these sites must uphold their Terms of Service.

Tip #3: Do you think this is wrong? Here is a link to the FTC’s Complaint Form.

According to Downey, getting your data off once is not enough because the sites buy data and aggregate more info continually, making it likely that if you don’t take precautions, you’ll be put back in. Worse, Downey tells me,

I’ve also noticed that one company in particular, BeenVerified, has been repopulating opted-out information every 3 months. I have been documenting it as I see it happen to DeleteMe customers, and I’m drafting an FTC complaint that I plan on releasing both as a legal complaint and a blog post for the site.

Abine seems to like helping people opt-out on their own, though one can also use their service DeleteMe and they will do it for you. I used both to see how each works.

While maintaining a privacy blog that’s like delicious junk food for us pro-privacy people, Abine’s Downey also got fed up one day and decided to post a how-to on removing yourself from background checks on Reddit.

Actually, she stated the reason was “Because it’s bullshit that corporations buy and sell our personal information.”

As someone who’s been on the fuzzy end of the lollipop with these sites, that’s a good enough reason for me.

Because there are so many of these sites and they are on the increase, a second post with more complete opt-out info followed it, and one Redditor created the grassroots site Unlistmy.info.

Tip #4: Spread the word.

Downey tells me that Abine is currently working on an even larger, comprehensive public and free DIY opt-out list to provide an open and transparent resource for everyone.

Page 2: [Links and complete instructions to opt-out, plus the site you can't actually remove yourself from...]  »

 

08th Jun2011

Vibrating Cigarette Packs Tell You When Other Smokers Are Nearby

by iSpit

The idea: With everything tending toward social, why not throw cigarettes into the mix?

Electronic cigarette manufacturer Blu is selling special packs of cigarettes that vibrate when they’re within 50 feet of another pack. The goal is to make smoking even more social.

“You’ll meet more people than ever, just because of the wow factor,” Blu founder Jason Healy told The New York Times.

The packs can also be configured to exchange social networking information and will vibrate when they’re near a store that sells Blu products.

And they’re supposedly healthier, too. The e-cigarettes emit a nicotine-laden vapor instead of smoke. A pack of five e-cigarettes costs $80.

Whose idea: Blu

Why it’s brilliant: We suspect that the novelty of being able to tell when other smokers are nearby will actually lead to meeting new people. And the social networking aspect makes it easier to stay in touch.

01st Mar2010

Facebook Patents The News Feed (Updated)

by iSpit

http://iamnotarapperispit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/feed-patent-icon.jpg

On Tuesday, Facebook was awarded a major patent for “Dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network”. This is a huge deal for a number of reasons, most significantly that it grants Facebook the opportunity to pursue other social networks which are infringing on their patent. Included in the patent are additional claims including feed filters, feed advertising, searching the feed, and more. (update We’ve been told that this is about the implicit feed stories. Will update when we have more info.)

Earlier this morning we reported on another patent which actually has not yet been approved but was simply published. This patent is confirmed published. The application was submitted back in 2006, before many other social networks integrated the feed as a major component. Twitter, for example, didn’t even launch prior to Facebook submitting this patent which could theoretically hold significant implications.

The inventors named on the patent are some of the company’s top executives, including the founder, Mark Zuckerberg: Mark Zuckerberg, Ruchi Sanghvi, Andrew Bosworth, Chris Cox, Aaron Sittig, Chris Hughes, Katie Geminder, and Dan Corson. What this patent means for the future of the social networking space is unknown, however this patent could be considered as significant as the original six degrees patent.

In contrast to the patent that we wrote about this morning, the news feed patent is much more general, which means it could be interpreted a lot of ways. For example, below is the news feed generation process as described by the patent:

News Feed Generation Process

Essentially it includes the generation of feed stories followed by the limiting of viewers of those stories. As many avid followers of the social networking space know, the feed (also called the “stream”) has become one of the central components of online social activity. The entire Twitter product, for example, is a feed.

Whether or not Twitter should be concerned about this new patent award is unknown, however this could be considered one of the most significant social web patent since Jan. 16, 2001, the day the six degrees patent was first published.

Update
It appears that this patent surrounds implicit actions. This means status updates, which is what Twitter is based on, are not part of this patent. Instead, this is about stories about the actions of a user’s friends. While still significant, the implications for competing social networks may be less substantial.

Via:

12th Feb2010

Google Buzz goes after Facebook, Twitter

by iSpit

Google Buzz, a feature of Gmail, aims to compete using elements similar to Facebook and Twitter.

Google plunged into the world of social networking on Tuesday, melding pieces of Facebook and Twitter into a new feature, Google Buzz.

Buzz, which will work through the popular Gmail service, will allow users to post status updates, photos and links to members of their network — as well as pull in their activity on other sites like Twitter, Flickr and Picasa.

Google spokesman Bradley Horowitz said the service, which was rolling out to some Gmail users Tuesday afternoon and should be available to all in the next couple of days, aims to weed out what he called the clutter of other networking sites.

With networking sites, “there’s obviously value there,” he said. “It’s a phenomenon that’s real, but it’s increasingly becoming harder and harder to make sense and find the signal in the noise.”

By letting users post photos, links and updates openly, the tool would mimic Twitter’s micro-blogging format. But users also will be able to make their content available to “friends only,” more closely following the Facebook model.
(more…)

10th Feb2010

You Are At Risk: Does What Happens In The Facebook Stay In The Facebook? NO!

by iSpit
THE TUTORIAL IS BELOW & STARTS AUTOMATICALLY.
HIT “READ MORE” & WATCH
19th Jan2010

Haiti Earthquake Themed Blackhat SEO Campaigns Serving Scareware

by iSpit

http://iamnotarapperispit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/haiti_scareware_blackhat_seo_3.jpg

Cybercriminals quickly mobilized following the news of a massive earthquake that hit Haiti on Tuesday, by introducing several hundred compromised domains embedded with bogus blackhat seo (search engine optimization) content related to Red Cross donations and general Haiti earthquake relief information.

The sites are 0 search results on Google, and upon clicking on them the user is redirected to one of the most profitable monetization tactic (FBI: Scareware distributors stole $150M) that scammers use these days – scareware also known as rogueware.

Naturally, the blackhat SEO campaigns are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s what else to look for, and how to make sure you’re donating money to the right organization.

What’s particularly interesting about the blackhat SEO campaign serving scareware (Setup_2022.exe; install.exe), is that a huge percentage of the sites are hosted within the network of Heart Shared hosting (heartinternet.co.uk), indicating some some of automatic exploitation of its customers.
(more…)

22nd Dec2009

Privacy Salience and Social Networking Sites

by iSpit

Facebook

Reassuring people about privacy makes them more, not less, concerned. It’s called “privacy salience,” and Leslie John, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein — all at Carnegie Mellon University — demonstrated this in a series of clever experiments. In one, subjects completed an online survey consisting of a series of questions about their academic behavior — “Have you ever cheated on an exam?” for example. Half of the subjects were first required to sign a consent warning — designed to make privacy concerns more salient — while the other half did not. Also, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a privacy confidentiality assurance, or no such assurance. When the privacy concern was made salient (through the consent warning), people reacted negatively to the subsequent confidentiality assurance and were less likely to reveal personal information.
(more…)

Switch to our mobile site