Information leaks on social networks : that’s not the problem

Summary : businesses see social networks as possible channels for information leaks caused by negligence. What is right. But their retort, that is mainly technological, does not solve anything because social networks are only one of the many channels that can make risks become true, not the cause of the risk. As a matter of fact the largest social network in the world is the street. If a global approach through awareness and accountability will help to deal with the whole risk, solutions that are being currently implemented are only window-dressing regarding to the many channels information can use to leak. Human issues can’t be solved by technology only and firewalls will never replace trust.

It’s obvious that information leaks is a sensitive point for businesses and the risk of employees being negligent on social networks has to be taken seriously. Hence the need for limiting this risk. Most of time the response relies on technology. That solves a part of the problem but is far from being enough.

As a matter of fact, prohibiting any connection to these sites or filtering outgoing information may limit the risk. But such an approach has weaknesses. It only works on corporate devices. At the moment people use their mobile or connect from home the risk is here gain. Making employees aware of the risks caused by their own behaviors is more useful because, in some ways, tools are only the vehicle behaviors use to make information flow. Adopting this approach helps dealing with some of the consequences but none of the causes.

The largest social network is not Facebook or Twitter but…the world, life, the street. And no technology will prevent anyone to do anything there except accountability. The good side of this approach is that, when it’s successful, it works with any device, anytime, anywhere.

We all have examples to tell. This group of coworkers of Bank xxxxxx having a drink and talking about their employer’s solvency, not being conscious everyone was listening to them. These two executives discussing their secret new corporate strategy at lunch. Everyone around appreciated. This group of employees of YYYYY vacationing together and discussing, around the pool, of lay-off program they were secretly working on. The problem that, even if they were on the middle of the Indian Ocean there were lots of french people in the hotel. One more thing. I would like to thank the sales rep of ZZZZ that were discussing their plan to sign with a customer in the plane….since I was meeting the same client a couple of years later my colleagues and I make the best possible use of it. I also think about all the people that can’t prevent from working in trains or planes, making it easy for anyone to see what’s on their beautiful HD screen.

Of course such things never happen. I’m even sure that in the above mentioned companies, social networks are filtered or blocked. Human issues won’t be solved by technology and firewalls will never replace trust.

 

 

Separation between personal and professional time dies hard

Summary : we’re being told that the frontier between personal and professional is bluring, that ubiquitous tools are going to make it deprecated. We’re also told that that it’s a very good thing because more and more employees are demanding it, not mentioning young generations for whom this separation seem to date from the last century. In fact the problem is deeper : albeit anyone want to be able to act anytime very few people want to be the subject or the receiver of any action on what they consider as private moments. And that changes everything…and can contribute to deterioriate human relationships in the workplace if no one takes care.

The fact that the frontier between the time dedicated to personal live and the time dedicated to personal live is slowly disappeating. I’m talling about time, not about the content of these two sides of one’s lifes, what is another kind of debate.

What is indisputable is that the nature of time has no link with places anymore : people can work from home, from any location in fact, as they can take benefit of their lunch break to deal with personnal issues while they’re at the office.

Another indisputable thing is that with the evolution of mobile devices, the work environment is becoming ubiquitous. In fact, saying it can becom would be closer to reality and, paradoxically, it seems that employee’s expectations in this field are far from being met by what enterprises deliver.

Then, it’s said that an unavoidable cultural evolution makes people, more precisely younger ones, feel that the separation between professional and personal times is artificial and want to be able to manage their time as they want. Who did never find reassuring to be able to say ”ok…enough for today, I’ll finish this emails this weekend” or “anyway, I’ll be able to react remotely if needed”.

But when we dig further, things are far from being that obvious. Albeit the frontier is not as tight as it was, it’s not being broken down either. If fact it’s a one-way change.

There’s a kind of schiziphrenia between what’s seen as an ease (being able to do something out of one’s worktime to be more flexible or responsibe) and what is seen as an intrusion in one’s life (receiving an email or any kind of request while not supposed to be working).

There are three situations :

- finishing one’s work or doing some in advance : one send an email, share something in a collaborative space. There’s not expectation to get any reaction before people are back to work.

- one faces an emergency situation : one send something and expects a reaction. Two means : email or instant messaging. At the other end, the recipient may be offline or do as if he did not noticed…

-  the misunderstanding : someone does something on a saturday, thinking no one will react before monday but that, at least, that’s done. At the other end, someone feels he have to react and do something because the other has… What what not the purpose of the original sender.

The issue is not with mixing times but with  intrusion and constraints. As long as it’s about asynchronous collaborative tools things can be managed, but when a message or an alert is sent that may cause many problems. And who says exchang means that there are at least two people involved.

Conclusion ?

- don’t take everything we’re told for holy truth.

- favor asynchronous collaborative spaces so the freedom of some won’t threaten other’s privacy.

- collectively bild a policy if not rules within teams because that’s not about a sum of individual preferences but a global mechanism. When one starts, another feels he has to do the  same…and so on even if it’s not an obligation.

Anyway, things have to be clarified because misunderstandings may quicly make the atmosphere strained and negatively impact some employee’s self-balance.

Do organizations have anything to learn from Foursquare ?

Every year (if not every half-year) a new service becomes the main topic of conversation on the web. The buzz comes, of course, at a so early stage that’s it’s impossible to guess at this time how perenial the success will be and if the service will be able to find a sustainable business model, but this does not prevent experts to imagine it as a pillar of new usages on the intranet that will, at last, make enterprise 2.0 mainstream in the workplace.

In these early months of 2010 the pretended “next big thing” is called Foursquare and many things have already been writen here and  there about its future brilliant success in the workplace. Let me also mention Gowalla, that’s more recent but has many interesting features and Whrrl that is not “officially” working in France at this time.

So, is it one more craze or the future next big thing ?

What’s that ?

To keep it simple, let’s say these services allow you to “localize” where you are to tell your network “I’m there” or tells any of your contact going something “x… whas here and he even let a tip/recommandation about the place”. You can tell me that it may quickuly become boring and even pointless. That’s why some funny things have been added to keep the interest up.

The person with the most “check-ins” in a given place becomes the “mayor” of this place. This is an honorific title but some businesses already try to make things to pay more attention to the customer who owns the mayorship of their place. People may also win “badges” when they accomplish things like cumulating x check-ins, x airports, 3 Apple Stores….there is no limit to what can be invented to create new badges…

Everything is, of course, opt-in : one share only what he wants with whom he wants.

What benefits for users ? ?

Here things get more complicated. It stimulates a kind of funny competition within one’s network, most of all when these people do a little bit more than home-transportation-work every day. It’s always funny to go to a new place and to know that a friend of yours was theis months before and let a message about things to do, to see, specials if it’s a retaurant….

Now let’s be honnest and pragmatic. Except this funny competition side (I sometimes like these kind of pointless games), the vague feeling of being closer to other since we can know who is where, who’s around…I can’t find any tangible benefit at this time. Maybe I once appreciated a “since you are there, xxxx recommands such restaurant that’s one block away” but nothing more. Humm..I was forgetting one point : when I’m at a conference abroad it’s always useful to know who is where, attending such track in such room, is at the airport, is at such restaurant to be able to micro-organize all together without spending our time calling each other on the phone.

I’m afraid that’s all.

We used to live very well without that in the past. Let’s also admit we can say the same about mobile phone…

Let’s admit that it does not look that a business killer-app. But is there a part of this new paradigm that may bring any benefit in a business context ?

[Read more...]

Does enterprise 2.0 threaten your security ?

Among the many questions businesses have about enterprise 2.0,  this one has an important place. Not because enterprise 2.0 is necessarily dangerous but because any new thing brings a change in a situation that’s supposed to be secured. So the principle of precaution plays its part in organization where risk aversion is more important than anything else.

The purpose here is not to discuss the fact this risk aversion causes (or not) a form of phobia toward any kind of novelty that would be a barrier to any kind of evolution, of improvement. It’s about assessing if enterprise 2.0 brings a new security risk in organizations and, if so, how to deal with it.

What security ?

Security is a legitimate concern that, in fact, has to do with lots of different things to such an extent that when someone broaches this subject it(s hard to really know what he has in mind. With hindsight, businesses have to main concerns about security : the one is about structure security, the other is about information security.

By structural security I mean protection againt attacks toward the IT system itself. By information security I mean concerns about unauthorized information broadcasting or disclosure.

[Read more...]

Do not mistake tab keeping for stupidness. Responsability is needed on the web

In my “web and society” series, I can’t prevent from saying a few words about the tab keeping theory which is put forward by many people as we leave many traces on the web.

Assumption :we leave traces on the web, anyone can use it and not only to help us. We leave traces, the web stores them and it’s dangerous.

I repeat what I’ve already wrote many teams : the web is the world, there are the same people that are not better or worst than in real life and thinking the same social rules may apply is everything but stupid.

Imagine you’re the hero of the following story…

[Read more...]