No, you should never give a potential employer your passwords

I just about fell out of my chair when I read that it is an increasing trend in the United States that potential employers are asking applicants to give their Facebook passwords during the interview process.  I mean literally almost fell out of my chair.  The entire concept of that is so appauling to me that I can't even begin to describe it.  This isn't going to be a long post for a pretty simple reason.  Would you give an employer your mail to look through?  Would you give them the keys to your house to look through?  Giving up a Facebook account, email access, etc is the exact same thing.

The other consideration is that when you give up your Facebook login details to anyone, you are not only compromising your own personal information, but also the personal information of your Facebook friends, since anyone logging into your account would also have access to your friends and their information which they have shared with you.

Then there is the simple fact that if an employer is going to base whether or not they hire me on my Facebook account, Twitter profile, or any other kind of personal device like that, they are not an employer that is one that is worth working for.  If an employer is not going to hire me because of a picture of me at a bar having a shot, than what realistic expectation do I have as to the type of workplace that will be?

I will say it again, never give your passwords for any kind of online account to anyone, especially a potential employer. They are not worth it.  I could go on a lot longer about this, and how much of an invasion of privacy it is, etc.  But I don't need to, because the entire idea is so hilariously bad it speaks for itself.

Shocking: apps that need to use your address book do, in fact, need to use your address book

There has been a massive uproar in the last week about smartphone apps that take users address books and use them for an action in the app.  This is most common with social type apps, those that say "hey, these friends are using [app X], do you want to be friends with them?"  What is unfortunate is that this has been going on for years, and people simply don't understand how it works.

I will be talking about Path here, since that is the app that received much of the attention, but many other apps like GroupMe, LiveProfile, even Facebook and Twitter, do this.  What happens is that when an like Path wants to check to see fi any of your contacts are already using Path, there are two ways it can do that.  The first is to upload your contact list to the Path servers, where they can then check that list against the hundreds of thousands of users registered on Path.  The other option is to download the database of all of the hundreds of thousands of users who use Path to your phone, so it can then check yoru contacts against that list.

So, which do you think is better/easier?  Uploading 50-200 names so it can be checked against a list of say, 700,000, or downloading 700,000 names so they can be checked against a list of 50-200?

The other part of this is that some apps will alert you when a new friend joins Path.  To do this, Path would have to upload your contact list each and every time the app starts.  I would honestly rather have the list get uploaded once, instead of several times a day.

Now, I will admit that many apps are not clear about this, and I don't think most people even realized how this worked, even if it is fairly obvious when you sit and think about it for 5 minutes.  This is another unfortunate case of most consumers not understanding how the technology they use every day works.  And again, because too many people don't understand, things will have to change.  Apple has said they will update iOS to force any app that wants to use contact information to explicitly ask before it can.  I will point out though that in Android every app you install does list the permissions it requires, and an app will tell you then if it needs to use your contact list.  I doubt many people really look at this, but it has been in Android since the very beginning.  The change Apple is making is not a bad change, I just wish it didn't have to be necessary.

The Rapidly Changing Internet - Online Advertising

The internet.  Probably the greatest invention of the information age.  It is revolutionizing how we do everything.  From communication, to shopping, to consuming information, to advertising, to working, and much more.  Unfortunately the internet is advancing and changing so much that it can be hard to adapt to.  Unfortunately this is leading to some pretty severe growing pains as Governments and agencies, as well as businesses and individuals are all trying to adapt, with varying degrees of success.  The biggest problem is the fear that comes with new technologies.  Those who do not understand or know how new tools and technologies work are more likely to be wary of them, and those people can hold us back.  There are many parts of this that I'm going to touch on, but I want to start with online advertising and how more specifically targeted ads can be the most valuable advertising that there is, and why we should embrace that, not be afraid of it.

I've chosen to talk about advertising first not because it is the obvious first choice, but because it is topical.  Canada's privacy commissioner recently ruled that some types of targeted advertising on the internet violate Canada's privacy laws, and needs to change.  This to me show just how out of touch our privacy commissioner and privacy laws are with the future of communication and media.

Let me start by talking about old media, or traditional, advertising.  I'll mostly be talking about TV advertising, but this still generally applies to other mediums like news print and radio as well.

Traditional advertising has a very simple model.  Companies sell a block of advertising, and all viewers watching at that time will see it.  That may sound like a great method, but it is actually pretty inefficient.  Advertising usually targets only a subset of those people that are watching.  For example, an advertisement for Gillette razors may be very relevant to someone like me, a mid 20's male.  But a 12 year old girl could be watching at the same time, and that commercial has zero value to her.  That means that out of the two of us, the advertisement is only reaching 50% of the audience with the targeted effect.

Now, ratings and demographics play a huge role in traditional advertising.  Higher rated TV shows will have more expensive ad spots because there are more people watching them.  A show like desperate housewives will have more advertisements targeted towards women, because more women than men watch that show.  During Saturday morning cartoons I'm more likely to see ads for toys than I am for R-rated movies.  Traditional media depends heavily on ratings and demographic information, because it can try to target the most appropriate ads at the shows that would have the appropriate audience.  That's why the male 18-34 and female 18-34 are such sought after viewers among networks.  But even with all of the data that they can get, there is still a large part of the audience that will watch an advertisement where it is simply not relevant to them.

Now, lets look at some of the various online advertising models.  Google, which makes the vast majority of their money each year through advertising, has the simplest, but easiest to understand model.  a company can buy a keyword on Google.  When a user does a search that includes that word, that company's advertisement appears in the search results.  So if I search for "coke" and the coca-cola company has purchased that keyword, I'll see an ad for coca-cola in my search results.  simple, but yet very effective.  It means that only people who are searching for something will see that ad.  If I don't' search for coke, I'll never see a coca-cola ad.  Simple as that.  Google uses keyword advertisements in almost all of its products.  in Gmail, if an email has a phrase relating to coke, a coke ad will appear on the right hand side of the page.  Simple, effective, and un-obtrusive.

Now, our activities can also influence advertisements we receive.  I'm going to use Facebook as the example here, as it is again, the most relevant.  All of the information a person puts into Facebook, whether it is their relationship status, hometown, interests, favourite movies, etc, allow advertisements to be targeted at them.  All of those "like" buttons you see all over the internet now, Facebook collects data on those too.  The goal is to provide you with the most targeted and relevant advertisements possible.  Did you just change your relationship status to engaged?  Well then Facebook will start giving you ads about wedding services.  IF you just got engaged and are female, then you are likely to get an ad for wedding dresses.  If you seem to "like" a lot of news stories relating to the Ford Motor Company, you will see a Ford ad. Like the Edmonton Oilers, you might see an ad for Oilers merchandise.

These types of ads are hugely valuable to companies, because it allows them to provide ads *only* to people that they would be relevant to.  If you are not getting married, there will be no ads for wedding services.  If you don't like coke, no coke ads.  It allow each ad to be so specifically targeted that it does not have to appeal to anyone except the target demographic.  This makes each advertisement more valuable for the both the company selling the ads, as well as the one buying them.

Now, as a consumer, someone looking at ads, I know that I would much rather see an ad that is for something that would actually matter to me.  Don't' get me wrong, if I never saw another advertisement again it would be great.  But since advertising is part of our lives, I really want to see something that matters.  I'd much rather see an ad for razor blades than makeup, for example.  And why would a company want to direct a makeup advertisement towards me?  It makes no sense for them, just as it makes no sense for me.

Now, there is an argument to be made about privacy.  That's a topic I'm going to talk about more later, but my belief is that how these ads are targeted towards me are in ways that are a natural extension of what has been done in the past.  Do you honestly thing that if 20 years ago that if companies could have targeted their advertising in this specific manner they wouldn't have?  the only reason they didn't was because there was no way of knowing.  Now, I'm sure this is true for most people, but I'm not one to hide many of my likes and interests.  It is by no means a secret that I like Coke more than Pepsi.  I will tell people that without a problem, so why should I care if an advertising company knows that.  Sure, that information should be used appropriately, but this is true for any and all information.  All the data is used for is to give me a better experience, which is what I want.

What the privacy commissioner has said is that information about how targeted ads work should be clear and visible to users.  I have no problem with that, as it is something that should be disclosed.  After that, it gets, well, stupid.  The privacy commissioner wants websites to stop using tools that users are "unaware of."  Honestly, that is shortsighted.  There is an argument to be made that if a person "likes" soothing on Facebook that it does actually constitute something that a user actively interacts with, and Facebook has disclosed this.  Things like changing a relationship status in Facebook are less obvious, but I would still argue that Facebook does disclose this as well, and a user has to actively put this information into Facebook.  IF they do not want that, they don't' have to.  When thinking about Google, the privacy commissioner's argument is even more wrong, because it only displays ads directly related to something a user does.

Online tracking of Children is another thing that the privacy commissioner wants stopped. Now, while I can see the argument that a child can't be reasonably expected to understand how all of this works, but what is being asked for is nearly impossible.  Using google as an example, if a 12 year old uses Goole to help with school homework, Google has no way at all of knowing who is making the search, just what the search is for.  The search could be made by a 12 year old, or a 70 year old, and Google would not know the difference.  For other services there are methods to combat at least part of this.  For almost all online services users must be 13 years of age to sign up, and have parents permission.  Now, admittedly this is probably one of the most broken "rules" in existence, but at least it is there.  In an age where companies have very little control over who actually uses their service, it would be impossible to keep one demographic out.

I really do believe that the type of targeted advertising we see on the internet today is the best kind of advertising ever seen.  It may seem a little off putting at first to think about an advertisement directed solely at an individual instead of a group of people, but this allows for a much better experience.  Just because it is new, does not make it bad for us.  I would argue that Google and Facebook have revolutionized advertising in ways that the TV networks could have only dreamed of 20 years ago.  Just as technology enables us as users to do more today than ever before, it allows the same thing to companies.  They should not be punished for using the tools at their disposal to create the best possible experience for a user simply because our laws are outdated and cannot keep up with said technologies.  That type of fear will only hold us back, not move us forward.  It doesn't mean that there is no privacy; There are things I choose not to share on the internet.  But if I'm willing share it, I want it to be used to give me a better experience.  That is why it is there. The future of advertising is here now.  In fact, it has been here for a few years.  The companies that embrace it, like Google, are doing immensely well.  Last time I checked Google was making more money than I can really comprehend through advertising sales.  This is not going away, and those that fight it and try to stop it like the Privacy Commissioner's office has will be exposed as outdated as they are, and will be left behind.

[Read] - Privacy Commissioner sets new guidelines for online ads

Windows XP turns 10

10 years ago today, Windows XP was officially launched in New York City.  It was a different tie.  We were 6 weeks removed from the attacks of 9/11, computers were still not in every home, not everyone had broadband internet, and smartphones really didn't exist yet.  How far things have come….

Windows XP was the second most important operating system release in the last 20 years, behind only Windows 95.  Windows XP represented the final combination of the user friendly Windows 9x series and the stable, but business centric Windows NT series.  This may not sound like much to most, but it was important, and built the foundation that we still use today in Windows 7.

Windows XP was heavily based on the Windows 2000 codebase, which was developed before the internet was something that everyone had.  That meant a bumpy ride for most of Windows XP's life.  XP was basically designed well before what we use the internet for today.  the idea of computer viruses spreading over the internet really hadn't been conceived, and the term "malware" hadn't even been invented yet.  Quite frankly Windows XP was not well equipped to handle these.  Even with major updates, like the massive Service Pack 2 in 2004, Windows XP was never really secure from such threats, even with good antivirus software.

Despite the bad, Windows XP was still a wonderful operating system in its time.  It received three service packs, service pack 2 remains to this day the single biggest update to any windows version ever.  It introduced the start menu convention that is still used to this day in Windows 7, and many of the UI elements, while updated and given the aero glass treatment in Windows 7, can still be seen today.

That being said, Windows XP's time has long past.  For many years companies, even Microsoft, tried to bolt on features, programs, and systems that were never really designed to run in Windows XP.  Windows Desktop search is the best example of that.  Windows XP had to be updated to be able to support newer hardware (the original shipping version of XP only supported hard drive partitions 127GB or less, where today 3TB drives are in the market), and the support for wireless was rudimentary at best until later in the life cycle.

Windows XP came out 10 years ago.  If you are reading this on Windows XP, it is time to move on.  XP has been surpassed by Windows Vista and Windows 7 (admittedly moreso Windows 7).  Windows 7 is simply the best version of Windows ever made.  Windows XP changed computing and truly made it mainstream. Windows XP was something I used literally every day from 2001 until 2007 at home, and until 2010 at work.  It was a good soldier, but the sun has set on it, and it is time that we move on.

The age of the smartphone, making communication more complicated one day at a time

My smartphone is my lifeline.  It is the only thing that I own that is literally almost always less than 10 feet away from me.  It is a tool like nothing I have ever used, and the versatility it has is unparalleled.  It is my all-in-one communication device, and my gateway to the world.  If you want to get a hold of me, chances are that it will come through to my phone in some form.  That ability is very powerful, and something I've come to rely on, but that ability has also led to a huge problem with cell phones and how we communicate today.  Let me explain.

I said that no matter how you are trying to get in touch with me, it is likely that it will, in some form or another, come to my phone.  The problem with that is the sheer number of ways that someone can get in touch with me.  Looking at my phone right now, here are all of the communications methods on it, in no particular order: SMS, gmail, Facebook, Facebook messenger, Google +, Google + messenger, Google Talk(though this is starting to merge with messenger), Live Profile, GroupMe, Tweetdeck (and the official twitter app), foursquare, BeeJive IM, and Skype.  Oh, yea, and it is also a phone too.  If you include both twitter apps, though I only really use the official one for contact sync, that is thirteen separate ways to communicate with me on my smartphone.  Now, There are a few that I don't use often.  Groupme, for example, is one that I signed up for simply to make sure that I could get my identity. I don't actually have any contacts in it yet.  LiveProfile is similar.  I used it to talk with a couple people, but haven't opened it in a couple weeks now.  Others are used almost continuously, like SMS and Twitter.  Now, the easy answer is that I should just cut down on some of those services.  I don't really use something like LiveProfile or GroupMe, but I have them because I want to make sure that I have those services under the online identity that I use, so all of them are there for that reason at the very least.

What I think this really points to, however, is the sheer stupidity of the state of communications right now.  The simple fact that there are thirteen different ways of talking to me through my phone is kind of absurd.  As technology and communication is evolving, different services are popping up, and it's creating fragmentation that is worse than I think we've ever seen.  I hate talking on the phone.  I of course do it, a good part of my job involves talking on the phone (that may be part of the reason why I hate it, truthfully), but if there is another way of getting in contact with someone than over the phone, I will probably do it.  So in many ways, the ability to communicate in other ways is awesome, but the fact is that there are too many ways to do it now.  SMS is simple and everyone has it, but some people don't like it, Twitter is a fantastic tool for communication, but there are more people I know who don't use it than do.  Pretty much everyone uses Facebook, but I personally hate Facebook so I try not to use it unless I have to, Google+ is a growing tool that is still finding the way in this market.  It may end up thriving, it may die. No one is really sure yet.  Email is email, and all of the other IM/messagaing apps are, well, IM/messaging apps.  The problem is that each one has a purpose, and while the concept of each is roughly the same, there is actually very little overlap on how I use each service.

I really started to think about this when I looked at my phone after dinner one day and I literally had an email, text message, Twitter reply, twitter direct message, Facebook message, an IM from LiveProfile, a missed call notification and a voicemail.  With the exception of the two different twitter messages and the fact that the missed call and voicemail both use the phone dialler, each one of those required me to go into a separate app to read/reply to the message.  Now, the fact that my smartphone can aggregate all of those messages is fantastic, but it doesn't change the fact that I had to go into 6 different applications just to se them all.

WebOS, of all things, actually has tried to alleviate this issue since version 1.0 in 2009.  WebOS synergy is an effort to combine not just contacts, as Android can do now, but also how we communicate.  WebOS' messaging app included support for SMS and IM networks together.  The theory was that you could send someone a message through the messaging app, and it would go to them in whatever way it could, through IM if possible, or if not, through SMS, and you could receive messages the same way, and the messages would form one thread or conversation, with each message having an indicator as to which service it was sent/received.  The goal of Synergy was always to make it open for more services to hook in to, so everything could go through there.  It was a great idea that ended up going nowhere because Palm and later HP completely failed WebOS.  Facebook has even tried something similar with the revamping of their messaging services.  They have tried to combine so messages, chat, and email all appear in a single thread for users.  It is again a good idea in theory, but I have found Facebook's implementation less than stellar, especially with their terrible chat UI.

Now, while this is partly just the fact that the age of smartphones is still very young.  Some of these apps like LiveProfile and GroupMe probably will be gone within 18 months or so, and that's part of the process.  Some of those services will fold, others will be bought by larger companies and absorbed like the Beluga messaging service being bought by Facebook earlier this year.  I don't think we'll ever be rid of the fact that we will have 4-5 things that we will need to look at, but my hope is that some of these things merge or die off.  We need 2 or 3 dominant services after SMS, and that's it.  All I know is that the current state of messaging and communications, especially on mobile devices, is out of control and needs to be corrected.