Internet ID Plan Yet Another Example of U.S. “Nanny State”

Obviously, I understand the need for online security.  However, I see a couple of obvious (at least to me anyway) problems here.  First, I'm really skeptical of any system that can attempt to "make everyone safer", simply because this sense of security will make people complacent and not take responsibility for themselves.

But, the bigger problem I have here is one of fundamental ideology. Take away the pros and cons of the system itself, and you are left with the fact the the government is taking upon themselves to spearhead and fund this.  The liberals out there will disagree with me on this, but this is simply not the government's job.  It is yet another example of the U.S. government spending money we don't have on something that is clearly not a necessary government project.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/15/obama-administration-unveils-internet-id-plan/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Gigya_Obama_Administration_Unveils_Internet_ID_Plan

Social Media and Personal Branding - Some Initial Thoughts

A couple of months ago, my employer(Aptera) hosted a discussion on social media, presented by TQM Network.  The main discussion points were around use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter within the context of business. A couple of specific points really stuck with me, and have guided my use of social media since then.

First, if you use social media, and also happen to work for a company that someone else owns (that's most of us, yes?), then whether you like it or not, everything you do or say on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, or any other social media network represents not only you, but the company you work for.  There is vast truth in the idea that every employee of every company is a salesperson, for better or worse.  How you represent yourself, both in person and in cyberspace can and does give people an impression of what kind of company it is that you work for.  Potential customers make conscious and unconscious decisions about whether or not to do business with your company based on more than just what the salesman says.  And since most of us would prefer to keep our job, it makes a lot of sense to do our part to help our respective employers put their best foot forward.  The bottom line here is that we need to always remember that everything we post on the internet can and does contribute to the impression that the world has regarding the company we work for.

The second topic that I walked away with was that of "personal branding".  Just as everything a company does collectively establishes their corporate brand, so it is with individuals.  Everything you post on the internet collectively adds up and establishes your personal brand.  Once you realize that, you then have some decisions to make about what you want that brand to look like.  For example, do you want your personal brand to say that you are a trustworthy, professional person?  Or, would you rather let everyone know that you spend most of your free time hungover?  It's an individual decision, but let there be no doubt that whether you actively make that choice or not, you are building your personal brand, one way or another.

While there is no single "right answer" on how best to build a brand, there is one word that I try to keep in mind: consistency.  You should use common profile and background images across all of the social media networks that you use, including IM clients.  For example, I have the exact same profile image on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google Talk, and Windows Live, as well as this blog.  I also am currently using that same background image on my laptop, so that as people see it, they will recognize that same image online.

I've really just scratched the surface here on the topic of how people represent both themselves and their employer in social media.  I am certainly not an expert, I just wanted to get some of my initial thoughts out here with the hope that I can start a discussion on the topic.  I welcome any thoughts you may have on the topic, so feel free to comment here or drop me an email at shannonneumann@live.com.

I'm really not a techno-elitist... Well, sorta.

I read an editorial recently by Ted Pin over at SQLServerCentral.com, and I have to agree with him 100%. His beef is with the term "IT guy". That is, even though many of us work in IT, we don't necessarily like to be referred to as "IT guys"... Why? Well, because of the common perception of what "IT guy" means. If you've ever seen the "Nick Burns" Saturday Night Live skits, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The general population equates "IT guy" with the rude helpdesk guy that they are forced to call when Excel crashes, or worse yet, with the Beetle-driving Geek Squad from Best Buy... To put it bluntly, I don't fall into this group and I don't want to be categorized as though I do.

What I have beef with is the broad categorization of any person who works "with computers" for a living all into the same group of "IT guys". And my beef breaks down into two parts.

First, there is the "guy" part of the title. By tacking on "guy" at the end, it cheapens the whole thing. To quote from Mr. Pin, "When we refer to other professionals, we definitely don't say "the plumber guy," or "the doctor guy," or "the lawyer guy." If you say those out loud, the inclusion of "guy" somehow changes the connotation, and not in a good way. (Try it.)".

Second, is the grouping of all technology professionals into this one group of "IT guys". I think many professional software developers (or data warehousing experts or enterprise architects, or many others) would agree that being grouped together with pre-entry-level helpdesk techs is irritating. I imagine that most neurosurgeons wouldn't want to be categorized together with CMAs (certified medical assistant) and be called "medical guys". I mean, let's be honest here...

Before I offend anyone else, let me clarify something. I am in no way saying that there is anything wrong working the helpdesk (or any other job, for that matter). I know where I came from, and I have held a wide range of IT jobs from helpdesk to network administrator to webmaster to developer to consultant. I have been an "IT guy", and there is nothing wrong with it. I'm really not trying to be elitist.

Having said that, I still don't want to be called an "IT guy", because I feel that my experience and skills separate me from that title. Does that make me an elitist? I guess it kinda does. Oh well.

Is the "final frontier" getting more dangerous?

Due presumably to the fact that I work "with computers", people often ask me about things like internet file-sharing, DVD copying software, etc. Typically, they want to know if whatever they are thinking of doing might be illegal. Of course, since I work "with computers", that makes me an expert on US and international copyright laws... Anyway, I generally tell them that this is a very gray area and that the best course of action is to steer clear of anything questionable.

As the Internet has matured, lawmakers have been slow to address the changing techno-landscape, due in small or large part to a lack of understanding of the possibilities/dangers that exist. However, in recent years, lawmakers at all levels have enacted a hodgepodge of legislation creating a whole new category of potential criminals who use their computers instead of guns. The problem with these laws is that they seem (in my opinion) to have been fueled largely by pressure from the entertainment industry as well as fears of terrorism. Laws created out of pressure from industry are going to naturally represent the interests of that industry and not necessarily the best interests of the legislators' constituency. Furthermore, laws created out of fear are going to tend to be overreactions that are not necessarily the most well thought out.

What we now have are a lot of laws that can indeed be enforced to punish legitimate offenders. However, there is also a great deal of room for otherwise honest, law-abiding citizens to be caught up by laws that allow a great deal of latitude for interpretation or by laws that they didn't even know existed. The point I am trying to make here is that in their attempt to regulate the "final frontier", lawmakers have (arguably) made it a more dangerous place for the average person.

TechRepublic has published a short summary of recent cyber-legislation that reinforces my viewpoint that it is just best to steer clear of anything even remotely questionable. The summary is entitled "10 ways you might be breaking the law with your computer", and can be found here. I would strongly recommend reading it and deciding for youself of the "final frontier" is getting safer, or more dangerous.