g.mail glitch
I learned a while back now that there is an issue with the use of dots at Gmail. This is a known issue that Google list on their help pages. I was quite relaxed about this as, to quote Google:
“If you’re homerjsimpson@gmail.com, no one owns Homer.J.Simpson@gmail.com, except for you.”
So far so good.
Until I started getting emails from someone in Australia about all kinds of stuff – mostly related to a university campus down there. And other emails from the US, where church organisations were sending me with all kinds of stuff about things they wanted me to participate in.
On checking with the two sets of emailers, turns out the difference has come from the presence (or absence) of dots in the email address. In both cases I’ve been told that the email addresses are otherwise the same.
So now I’m worried. If I am getting their mail, are they getting mine as well?
In the wake of various other privacy / data security glitches from Google, I think I need to find a new webmail server. Fast!
Is anyone else bothered that Google’s concern for the security and privacy is so low that private communications can be shared so easily?
| 3.2 |
… but it seems that (some ways of using) Twitter might not be free for much longer..
Amid rumours that Twitter and Amazon are in talks about a potential acquisition, it seems that Twitter are considering how to charge people to use their services.
But surely there is some mistake in this piece over on Brand Republic, who quote SalesForce.com’s charging structure at $995 per month?
Maybe not: the idea is quite an interesting one. You are basically asking Twitter to scour tweets for customer comments about your company – allowing you to then respond directly (and publicly) to people who are complaining, complementing or looking for info about your business.
This reminds me a lot of the things that Jeff Jarvis talks about in his excellent book “What Would Google Do?”. He describes the fall-out from his ‘Dell Sucks’ post(s) a few years back – and the whole question around whether companies should be monitoring the buzz around their brands from blogs. (answer: yes). And lambasting the response that said: “We look but we don’t touch” given by Dell when they were asked about their approach to consumer comments on blogs.
In other words, I (for one) thoroughly welcome this idea. Who knows, maybe customer service will improve generally if companies start listening to their customers?
(I know, radical thought, isn’t it?)
| 3.2 |
Forgive the radio silence from Sandlines. I’ve been head down doing things in the real world a bit – though still twittering @sandlines fairly often.
One of the things I’ve been discussing a lot has been the brou-ha-ha that’s kicked off over the past couple of weeks in the UK and the US around questions of privacy… something of a hot topic it seems.
A couple of separate but linked things that have contributed to this:
- the FTC talking (in the US) about its attitude to (and likely approach to) the sticky question of balancing the privacy of consumers against a desire not to constrict fair conduct of business in the online advertising community
- the IAB (UK) announcing their guidelines for ‘good’ practice in privacy against the backdrop of behavioural targeting
- Google’s announcements about the launch of it’s Google Interest programme.
And then there was the call from a journalist for a respected news source asking me if I thought the online industry was operating in an unregulated ‘wild west’ environment.
Now let’s just hold on a moment. There is a perfectly valid legal structure in place (European Convention of Human Rights (1950)/Data Processing Act (1998)/PECR/EC Directive…). All the principles are there.
What’s in question is how do we apply this to our current – and rapidly changing world, both online and otherwise.
What’s also in question is how much people understand this. If we are finding it so hard as an industry to get to grips with what we can/should/will do, how on earth do we expect to be able to convey this intelligently to consumers? Suggesting that it’s all ok because consumers will benefit from more relevant advertising is an argument that simply won’t wash: witness the furore in response to the IAB’s pronouncement a couple of weeks back.
If you want to find a model of how this can be done, I can’t think of a better one than Tesco Clubcard. There is so much information gathered about personal shopping habits – and then used to target marketing messages (amongst other things) that the current world of behavioural targeting online is still a long, long way from matching. And how do consumers react? With an almost visceral sense of attachment to the reward programme attached to the Clubcard.
That precise approach won’t work online; but it proves a point: people will exchange observed behavioural data if the benefits are right.
| 3.2 |
Recent Comments