Security and social networking

by Rainer Schmid

There’s a lot of talk going on at the moment surrounding the topic of social networks and how safe your personal information really is. A recent publication by emedia's RapidResearch service highlighted this for me.

The “RapidResearch Social Networking Sites Survey” focused on online users’ views of social networking sites and over 100 individuals, exclusively from the UK, took part in the research study.

The central research findings were as follows, "nearly two thirds (62%) of UK’s social-networking site users say they are worried about the safety of their personal data" and then "nearly one-third (31%) of users say they have entered false information about themselves to protect their identity".
Interesting, yes?
It seems that people are weary about posting their personal information on social networking sites, rather preferring to create an alias for themselves or just leaving out some important information. People are learning… I just hope they don’t have to learn the hard way.

Some of the other findings from the report that I found rather interesting are:

81% of those surveyed use networking sites.
The most popular sites among users are: Friends Reunited (47%), YouTube (42%), MySpace (39%), Facebook (26%) and LinkedIn (19%).
Respondents keep in touch with various types of contacts: friends (46%), colleagues (24%) and clients or potential clients (8%).
Those surveyed visit social networking sites for personal and professional reasons.
87% of respondents think social networking sites can be used for business purposes, including networking (65%), exchanging ideas (58%), getting advice (44%), recruitment (43%), research (35%) and selling (31%).
When asked what the main purpose for using social networking sites was, 11% responded "business purposes".

Some interesting stats, especially since it seems that more and more people are using social networking sites for business purposes.

2007/10/01 | permalink | comments (4) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

post a comment

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't want it public don't join a SOCIAL NETWORKING site.

The whole point is that you are supplying info so that you can network, share make friends and be merry. Ja, I understand if you're a celeb, then maybe an alias is alright.

But what is the worst that can happen, it's not like you're supplying ID numbers, bank details and pictures of you and your secretary?

k' bye

Posted by Marc on 2007/10/01

You only need a little information to get more. 1.3 million job seeker records were stolen from Monster by a new Trojan horse called Infostealer.Monstres. The information included candidates names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Symantec reported that the (probably stolen) login credentials of legitimate recruiters were used to access resumes on Monster, the data was then uploaded to a remote server and targeted phishing email was sent to those candidates, along with a Trojan horse which looks for bank and credit card account information. Scary stuff.

Posted by Chewbacca on 2007/10/01

Perhaps, but Monster isn't really a social networking site. Most people have their email addresses available anyway (blogs, company websites, comments like this etc). It does have a very similar wireframe layout to LinkedIn though ;)

A trojan is dangerous on any site with a login feature, and is particularly scary with regards to banking etc, agreed, but i have very little spam and phishing emails coming to my inbox. My little firewall and Junk filter sorts that out for me.

Online rule for me? dont sign-up on anything where there isnt a physical adress or a telephone number on the site as well, or is at least a little credible.

Posted by Marc on 2007/10/02

I think 1 of the reasons people don't give all their details or give false info is because they fear identity theft and don’t understand the details about what is actually needed to steal an identity.

Another thing that I can think of is that people fear paedophiles, psychos and other abusers getting hold of their, or their children, so will limit the details that they post or allow their children to post up on these social networking sites.

Sure there are also many other reasons but these 2 are just off the top of my head.

Posted by Rainer on 2007/10/02

Visit our Website

Post feed
Comment feed

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

Security and social networking

by Rainer Schmid

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments