If Facebook and other social networking sites don’t do a better job of balancing consumers’ needs and concerns, regulators and third-party solutions are likely to fill the void and offer or even impose remedies. In Australia, for example, Victoria is considering broadening the role of the “Privacy Commissioner” and “recommends giving people the right to sue for ‘serious invasion of privacy’” resulting from surveillance on mobile devices. The iapp publishes daily and weekly dashboards that track issues related to privacy and regulatory actions (see https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/). In the context of online tracking, Fran Maier (CEO of TRUSTe) argues “When done in a privacy conscious manner, online tracking can bring about a richer experience for both consumers and businesses alike. But somebody needs to watch the watchers, so to speak, and ensure that they respect and protect consumer personal information and privacy wishes.” (http://bit.ly/cYtCGy)

Dr. Phil Hendrix, immr and GigaOm Pro analyst

Mathew, good post. One of the issues that causes users concern is the broad, vague notion of “Friends” on Facebook. We’ve examined a number of services that connect users to their Facebook friends and many consumers express concern because Friends consist of such a broad, heterogeneous mix. At present, on Facebook, LinkedIn and other popular social networking sites, it’s not easy to make the kinds of distinctions that individuals make in everyday life (e.g., family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues/co-workers, etc.). Google’s Paul Adams (http://twitter.com/padday) illustrates this convincingly in “The Real Life Social Network” at http://bit.ly/b6A03x. Facebook, Google and others who aspire to help us “manage” and stay in touch with our social networks must do a much better job of giving users control. Initial attempts fall far short of what consumers expect.

Dr. Phil Hendrix, immr and GigaOm Pro analyst

Having worked the last 12 months in the core of multi-national ad agencies and MNC’s in the Balkans I know very well and have real life experience of the necessity of opacity in competitive eco-systems. No culture is more adept at using opacity and occult activity to its advantage than the Balkan. And the benefit to the “parea”, that inner circle that reaps the rewards of doing “quiet business” can be staggeringly lucrative, to say the least.

When I return to the US to do business, it is initially refreshing. Everyone is talking about transparency, the easy laissez-faire Californian social and business climate allows for a kind of quasi-love or rapport to develop instantly between strangers. And it is refreshing because certain swaths of Americans are just so dang action-oriented. As they say in Europe, if you want something to get done, give it to an American.

I’ve thought, written and spoken a fair amount on this juxtaposition between opacity and transparency. In the final analysis, I do think the Greeks and Balkans have it right. They know how to keep their mouths shut and do business in a way few Americans would ever comprehend or, quite honestly, notice. In terms of smarts, Balkans are the elder, wiser gentleman. But Americans also have it right with this movement into transparency. The planet, our very eco-system, needs a wave of clarification, of washing, cleaning up the spills that have darkened our waters.

Which leads me to address the location-based services and, in particular, Facebook’s location-based option. Location-based services CAN lead to good things. For instance, last week while checking in at a hotel, I saw two clients of mine checking in to the same venue as one another in another part of Los Angeles. I texted both and encouraged them to meet. The next evening we all met and a new business venture began. Awesome!

In terms of negative repercussions with location-based services, I would submit to this forum that transparency IS double-edged. What is done to another in a fully transparent environment could be said to have been witnessed by all. The challenge we have now is that the human community is NOT in a fully transparent eco-system (and may never be). Those who choose to blast their whereabouts and other sensitive details MUST be aware that those who DO NOT may use this information in destructive ways.

And this, my friends, is the EXACT relationship (in some cases) between quiet businessmen and loud businessmen. We may be action-oriented and effective in the US of A, but our ego-centric thrust towards “being in the lights” is precisely what more clever and subtle cultures use to their advantage and our disadvantage.

The best tome on this out on the market is Charlene Li’s book Open Leadership. Charlene has captured what it takes for leaders of enterprise-level business to effectively guide their organizations through this season of transparency. She accurately identifies the most effective leader as a Realist-Optimist who is “the most powerful and effective of the open leader archetypes, somebody who can see the benefits of being open but also understands the barriers.”

As leader and founder of the largest and most clarified of networks, Mr. Zuckerberg has the mandate to be a Realist-Optimist, holding the quality described by Ms. Li.

But the concern here is that FB allows it by default. Sure I can say “No”, but who knows how FB is going to phrase the question / notification? I’ve already turned off Places and most other options. But for those who haven’t, what exactly are they presented with? And is it clear what you are agreeing too?

-jim