That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

ITBusiness.ca had a story yesterday about a Humber College professor named Tom Green who uses @tomgreen as his twitter name. Fans of comedian Tom Green have been campaigning him to give his twitter name to Tom Green the comedian, who uses @tomgreenlive.

While it is an amusing story, and professor Tom Green has every right to keep his twitter handle, there is a lesson here.

Even if you are not a social media fan, and you don’t have an immediate desire to tweet or update your facebook status, it is a good idea to at least register your name on twitter, linkedin, and facebook before someone else with a similar name does. Or before someone else who has an axe to grind with you registers it.

Anyone starting a new business, or creating a new brand should look at social media availability. The usual corporate name searches and trade-mark searches may not be enough for a business or brand that wants a social media or web presence. And let’s face it, every business or brand that has customers or deals with the public should.

So when making name and brand decisions, see if the corresponding domain names and social media names are available, and lock those down immediately. If they are not available, then you might want to reconsider the business or brand name. It costs nothing or next to nothing to do – but the cost of not doing it could be significant.

For the London Free Press – July 26, 2010

Read this on Canoe

Customers and regulators take a dim view of companies that don’t safeguard private information

Twitter recently agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that it deceived consumers and put their information at risk through inappropriate and inadequate privacy measures. The charges were that Twitter represented it keeps user information safe, but its actual security measures were not adequate to do that.

On two separate occasions hackers gained unauthorized administrative control of Twitter and access to non-public tweets and user information.

In the first security breach, a hacker used an automated password-guessing tool to access Twitter’s administrative account.

In the second breach, a Twitter employee’s e-mail account was compromised and his or her administrative password inferred from other passwords stored in the e-mail account.

If this had occurred in Canada, it would be regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The United States does not have equivalent privacy legislation.

The FTC approach in these situations is to charge the company with misleading advertising for not living up to its privacy policy.

The FTC charged Twitter with making representations regarding its privacy and security measures which were false and deceptive in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The terms of settlement include the following.

Twitter is barred for 20 years from misleading consumers about the extent to which it maintains and protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of non-public consumer information.

This appears to be little more than a restatement of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, including this in the terms of settlement provides the Federal Trade Commission with more tools for punishment in the event of a violation.

Twitter may be fined $16,000 per violation of the settlement agreement for the life of the agreement.

Twitter must establish a comprehensive information security program. The program is to include detailed risk assessment and safeguards based on that risk assessment.

The safeguards must be regularly tested and re-assessed as its operations and business change.

The security program will be assessed by an independent security auditor every other year for the next 10 years. Those reports must be provided to the FTC.

Twitter also must maintain certain records for the FTC, including any statements it makes regarding security and privacy, customer complaints relating to the FTC complaint and its responses, and any documents that suggest non-compliance with the settlement.

Whether it is the FTC taking action on misleading advertising grounds, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner taking action under PIPEDA, or simply customers becoming upset at security breaches, businesses can’t afford security and privacy breaches.

The lesson is, it’s far better to consider and deal with security and privacy issues on your own at the outset, then to have problems and face the wrath of regulators and customers alike.

I don’t get why people feel the need to know everything immediately.   This has puzzled me for years.  Many years ago, TV stations bragged about breaking news on their station first.   When CNN came along, it was a big deal that we saw it on CNN first.  Now we see tweets commenting on how events are tweeted before they hit CNN.

What we saw on CNN was in essence reporters’ real time collection of information – before they had a chance to understand or edit.  Sometimes literally hours of raw feed that could be summarized in a couple of minutes.  On twitter news takes the form of small snippets of info, often passed along like gossip, with more emphasis on speed than accuracy.

Frankly, unless its something I need to know right now to act upon (the intersection of 1st and Vine is blocked due to a water main break – take an alternate route) I’d rather wait for a brief, accurate summary and some reflective comment, rather than take the time to wade through the firehose of raw data and speculation.

For the London Free Press – December 7, 2009

Read this on Canoe

NETWORKING: Companies should be proactive in securing their Twitter handle

Twitter has emerged as a powerful and inexpensive advertising alternative for many companies.

Some businesses have found to their chagrin, however, that others have already taken their name for a Twitter or other social networking account.

There are a plethora of sites on the web, such as flickr and YouTube, that allow users to obtain accounts and publish various things.

Companies that use these tools include Ford, for example, which has more than 19,000 Twitter followers. This free method of advertising can prove extremely effective. When users opt in to receive these messages, advertisers have a captive audience.

Coca-Cola has experienced similar success. It has accumulated almost 12,000 Twitter followers who receive messages on a wide variety of Coke-related topics ranging from efforts to increase recycling to a link to a Coca-Cola themed wedding. This advertising increases brand awareness and loyalty.

A recent article in Advertising Age magazine pointed out that some companies have not been as proactive in securing their Twitter domain name.

For instance, Wendy’s, the fast-food restaurant chain, had their name registered by another user. They were forced to use “TheRealWendys” as their Twitter name. This makes it more difficult for users to find their Twitter page and has resulted in their having fewer than 1,000 followers.

Another concern for businesses is imposters impersonating the company and sending out undesirable messages.

Hyundai, the Korean based car-maker, fell victim to a “Twitter squatter” recently who posted links to woman posed in a provocative manner under the Hyundai handle.

This can cause considerable embarrassment for a company being linked to messages it is not responsible for.

Twitter executives have recognized this problem and are taking steps to remedy the problem.

Twitter has, for example, awarded “verified status” to certain high-profile users, such as celebrities and athletes.

So when a user logs on to Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter account, they find a verified account check mark that indicates the user is who they purport to be.

This confirmation is possible through a conversation with the individual confirming their identity and that they in fact are the owner of the Twitter account.

Businesses have been pushing for a similar system to be implemented for corporations.

As the popularity of Twitter continues to increase, brands will feel increasing pressure to have a Twitter presence. The message for businesses is to try to obtain their names as user names in as many online social media or publishing sites as they can that might possibly be relevant to their business — or that someone else might obtain their name just to wreak havoc.

For companies that have failed to secure their Twitter handle, it may be too late. Many names have already been registered and could be occupied by squatters.

The challenge is to recognize what may be the next popular social networking site and to register that name as quickly as possible.

To make it easier, websites are available to search hundreds of sites in different categories all at once, such as knowem (www.knowem.com ) and namechk ( www.namechk.com).

The BBC news reports that the UK High Court has ordered that an injunction be served via twitter.  From the article:

The order is to be served against an unknown Twitter user who anonymously posts to the site using the same name as a right-wing political blogger.

The order demands the anonymous Twitter user reveal their identity and stop posing as Donal Blaney, who blogs at a site called Blaney’s Blarney.

The order says the Twitter user is breaching the copyright of Mr Blaney.

We have seen service by Facebook in Canada - perhaps it is inevitable that in the right circumstances we will see service by twitter.

For the London Free Press – February 2, 2009

Read this on Canoe

Almost everyone has heard about people who register website domain names, such as “mcdonalds.com,” with no legitimate claim to them.

The same thing may now be happening with usernames on social networking services such as Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook.

The motivation for domain squatters is the profit to be made when someone else wants to use the domain in the future.

In some cases, the motivation might be to tarnish the trademark at issue. There have been cases of domain-name blackmail in which domain squatters have threatened to post pornography or other offensive content on a company’s domain name unless the company pays them not to.

Dispute-resolution mechanisms have been put in place to handle ownership disputes over domain names.

Today, with the expanding number and popularity of online social networking services, there may be a similar race to acquire usernames. A username identifies the users of social networking sites, and in that sense is similar to a domain name.

The motivations of username squatters are similar to domain squatters. Username squatting has the potential to create confusion for consumers and can be detrimental to a business’s image.

If a business has not started to use the social networking tool, it may not even be aware this is happening. If a business decides to start using the tool, it may be disappointed to learn that its logical username has already been taken.

In his article, A call for the creation of the Uniform Username Dispute Resolution Policy, Erik J. Heels coins the term “Twittersquatting,” to describe the problem of somebody else registering a company’s trade-mark or name as a username on Twitter (See erikjheels.com).

Heels proposes a standardized policy to make dispute resolution more efficient, regardless of what legal jurisdiction they happen to be located in, as an alternative to more costly legal proceedings.

Usernamecheck.com is a website where you can enter usernames and find out which have been taken on various social networking services. Heels used Usernamecheck.com to discover that “of the top 100 global brands, 93 per cent have had their Twitter usernames taken by somebody else.”

To eliminate username squatting, businesses and organizations should keep on top of popular and emerging social networking services and obtain usernames for as many as they can.

Unlike registering domain names, it does not cost anything other than the time to do it. One doesn’t actually have to use the service right away, or at all, but at least it gets them the username for future use, and lessens the chances that someone else will obtain it for some other purpose.

Of course, there are always solutions for those who have their usernames pirated by squatters. But those solutions may involve litigation or a pricey buyout — solutions that will cost considerably more than the few minutes it would have taken to register the username itself in the first place.

Few in the early ’90s anticipated the value of securing domain names. We cannot always predict what online social networking service will be the next big thing. But it’s always cheaper and more effective to be proactive when it comes to protecting your name, brand or trade-mark.

To eliminate username squatting, businesses and organizations should keep on top of popular and emerging social networking services and obtain usernames for as many as they can.