Secure Social Networking -- sounds a little like a hurdle that many won't want to jump -- Nixle?

I guess we'll have to see.

I've posted before about the use of social networking site by government agencies -- especially the police. There's another entry (besides Facebook and Twitter) that appears to be set on making this a secure reality.

Nixle is a free service that allows you to receive trusted, up-to-the-minute, neighborhood information for where you live, work, visit – or for where your family and friends are located throughout the country.

Hmm, so trusted means secure? I guess we'll see how that goes over.

Police can send you information about car accidents or crime that's going on in your neighborhood—either by email, text messages to your cell phone, or both.

For now, I must admit there seems to be a decent movement underway. Apparently, more than 1,000 agencies have joined Nixle so far, and over 40,000 people have signed up. That's not a real good show of interest. I'm concerned especially since it requires both a learning curve for using the site (both the department representatives and the citizens) and a marketing push to get them to the site.

They do have a pretty impressive list of partners.

What do you think?

I expect that the police departments across our nation will need to consider funding alternatives soon

. . . so imagine the local government has reached the end of their economic rope and can no longer find adequate funding for the police department.

Dispatcher: "911 emergency, what's your emergency?"
Caller: "Someone stole my television."
Dispatcher: "No problem, ma'am, we'll have someone stop by between 8-12 this morning, or would 1-5 this afternoon be better?"
Caller: "8-12 is good, what will this cost me?"
Dispatcher: "That depends, ma'am. If all we do is take a report for your insurance company, we can do that for a flat rate of $50. If you want us to investigate the crime then it would cost you the initial $50 plus $50 an hour. We usually put about 6 hours into an investigation."
Caller: "Oh, I thought my tax dollars took care of that. What happens if I choose the flat rate and then you identify the person who stole my television while investigating another crime?"
Dispatcher: "Your tax dollars haven't covered the law enforcement we provide for almost 10 years, ma'am. If we identify the thief while conducting another investigation, you would be responsible for a cost-sharing with the other victim from the point where we identify your property. We would, of course, call you to notify you should that occur. We can do split billing, for an additional $25 each, or you can agree on the amount and get one bill."
Caller: "Oh, well thank you."
Dispatcher: "Did you want us to send someone out?"
Caller: "Uh, no. The television only cost $400 and was over 5 years old anyway, and I've been eying a new flat screen."
Dispatcher: "OK, well tell the store clerk that your television was stolen -- many stores will give you a 10% discount if you file a report."
Caller: "But I'm not."
Dispatcher: "Your loss, ma'am."
Caller: OK, thanks."

What do you think?

Unifying our Communications -- can we really speak with one voice?

About a decade ago, in the dark ages of Web 1.0, I happened across a technology that I absolutely knew was going to catch on. It was a simple idea, really, and promised to make things so much simpler for all of us.

Perhaps you heard of it -- Unified Communications?

If you need a refresher, go here.

I first got turned on to it with an adverstisement as I recall, probably on a pre-Microsoft Hotmail message or something. As I write this, I am having some difficulty remembering the name of the first company I signed on with for this great experience. I do remember that I could get voicemail, fax, and email all in one convenient location (on the web), and I could access it with my mobile phone. The thing I liked most about it was the storage space, as I had many points of presence where I accessed the web, floppies were still likely to roast in my car or break in my satchel, and USB thumb drives had not yet been invented.

I was really hooked on this phenomenon, and actually still have an account with a company called J2 (which is good, 'cause I hate using a separate phone line for the technology -2.0 practice of faxing. But I have progressed with the technology developments, and now wear my unified communciations on my hip. I have an ATT/HTC 8525 phone/pocket pc device that provides one central location to read emails (including those from J2 with a fax), send text (and email messages) from, keep up with my daily schedule, manage my tasks, keep record of my mileage and other business expenses, and still be able to share pictures, PowerPoint slideshows, and full-lenth Video movies. Oh, and I get all my phone calls there, too.

Speaking with One Voice

But today the question is whether we can unify our communications and speak with one voice. It appears that in order to get what we want from the behemoths of corporate America, we have to show that our "numbers" are big enough to require them to pay attention to. I like the attempts that many have made in their customer service endeavors, but are they listening to us because they have nothing better to do, or because the really care?

Let's put this into perspective.

If I have 5 customers that each want something different from me that requires my time, which one am I most likely to respond to? I'm thinking the first choice goes to the customer who wants what takes the least amount of mental and physical effort. This customer may also be one who has listened to my suggestions in the past. He or she is likely to be low maintenance when it comes to my time, and I (as many people do) truly appreciate low-maintenance. If by using this model one of the repeatedly needy doesn't get as much of my time, is that a problem? Perhaps, but what's a businessperson to do? At some point, you gotta let them live with their decisions, right?

Many business thought leaders will suggest that we drop the customers who can be considered hand-holding, high-maintenance. They note that the Pareto Principle tells us, quite accurately, that in anything a few (roughly 20 percent) are vital and many (roughly 80 percent) are relatively trivial. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.

Is that good business?

How do we expect mega-companies to respond? We expect them to satisfy all of their customers! We look at the invoice every month and determine how big a chunk of our income we are dishing out to them and think that they should be falling all over themselves to earn every penny we send them. That's not how small businesses work, but by golly, that's how they should operate!

But it won't work that way. The only way for us to get them to satisfy our needs is for us to take our time to first figure out what our needs are. We can probably start with a Top Ten for each company and then whittle down the list to the Top Two. We should then get together with other customers and compare notes and find our collective Top Two. Then and only then should we approach the mega-company and ask for their attention. This way, we won't be stuck with a problem fixer, we can get the attention of a problem solver.

Don't think that kind of proactivity is needed? Where else have we tried to individually change a collective issue? Where else have we limited our conversations before deciding how we as a group should act? Where else have we failed to get the attention of the real decision makers, and ended up with those who could barely answer our questions, much less fix our problems?

Have you looked at the political scene lately?

We have treated the business world like we've been treating the political world for far too long. How's that working for us? The current election season has drawn out potential voters and open public conversations (no, not the debates) more than any time in recent history. If we can figure it out for politics, can't we figure it out for business?

Here's a spoof of the 2008 debates that I hope you enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMpajqPV_bk

What do you think?

Arrrgghhh! All those years studying Political Science were a waste!

It's a shame when you realize that you wasted time doing something. It's even more a shame when you realize you wasted A LOT of time doing something!

No, I'm not talking about the times where we might second-guess ourselves after a failed marriage. I'm not referring to the soul-searching that goes on when one of our adult children does something REALLY stupid and we wonder where they learned that from. I'm not even talking about the feeling we get when we are downsized, rightsized, or even (God forbid) laid off, nor am I talking about what happens when you and your spouse vote for opposing candidates (more on that later).

I'm talking about the time we've wasted studying the variety of ideologies and political maneuverings at the Federal, State and Local levels of government in our fine country. I'm talking about the time we (even now) spend on trying to discern the benefits of voting for one primary candidate over another, or even trying to engage in public dialog to assist others in distinguishing from one potential political candidate over another.

This revelation comes like a cannon ball in the gut (I've never felt it, but I watched enough cartoons as a child to be able to imagine how it feels). Could it be true that it is actually our gut that affects our political persuasion? That's what it looks like . . .

According to James Fowler and Christopher Dawes of the University of California, San Diego, genetic predisposition can account for up to 50 percent of our political ideology. Tom Jacobs observed that political scientists have debated which environmental influences have a bigger impact on a young person’s nascent political ideology: the belief system of one’s family of origin, or the alternative ways of thinking one is exposed to in the outside world (say, at college). “All liberals know conservatives don’t have a heart, and all conservatives know that liberals don’t have a backbone,” joked John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University and one of the first academics to explore genetic influences on ideology. “So the issue has always been biological. “This takes some of the onus off of parents,” he added. “If your kids become liberal and you’re a conservative, they’re usually not doing it to poke a finger in their eye. It wasn’t a choice for them, so it doesn’t reflect a deliberate flaunting of your beliefs.”

The sure thing here appears to be that politics are not simple to understand -- at least not as simple as business.

Doc Searls, Scott Allen, and Jay Deragon have all posted of late on the effects of the basic factors of The Relationship Economy on politics in the context of the recent debates. Doc reported that Clinton called it “an honor” to be running against Barack Obama, and that “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” Scott and Jay observed that in recent debates, Obama was saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change, while Clinton was saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship. In order to keep this framed in one ideological stance or another, let me observe that McCain was deemed newsworthy by the New York Times for claims made eight years ago regarding his relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist . . . oh, wait, that's not we mean by The Relationship Economy . . . Actually, I think Newsweek did a decent job of covering the recent mud-slinging toward the GOP candidate-in-waiting.

The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer -- usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don't like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

It is sad, but I think the choices in this election season started out in the crapper, and they just keep swirling around and around.

Here's Tango's attempt to combine Politics and Relationships:



See if you can do any better!

What do you think?

Big Brother -- the future of social networking?

In no less than two articles I reviewed this morning, there was the undercurrent of "Big Brother" watching our every move. That's not the Big Brother you've been watching on television. That's the "Big Brother" that was the character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. I've had enough of these conversations to predict the responses by most of my contacts, but here's another opportunity for discussion.

In Science Daily, the article Wireless Monitoring Of People and Things: Future Of Social Networking?: observs that "Electronic tags promise to create what some call the 'Internet of things,' in which objects and people are connected through a virtual network." Imagine having instant access to your possessions, and being able to set up your system to tell you when you left really important things behind.

This sounds a lot like an upgrade of the "As seen on TV" sales of The Clapper that helped us find things when our memory failed us. Technology experts predict that RFID tags will soon be incorporated in consumer devices, such as cell phones, laptops and music players. Each tag, which looks a bit like a thin, flexible credit card, costs about 20 cents to produce. A specialized reader can scan the card through any non-metal barrier and from up to 30 feet away, depending on the type of tag. RFID tags are miniature computer chips that contain far more information than a barcode.

Also, you can write to an RFID tag--meaning the signal could not only identify the item, but what group it belongs to, when it was last seen, and other information. The technology has already proven its use in tracking goods. A manufacturer can identify a cart of hamburger patties and know which plant it came from, when it shipped out and a history of its temperature during transit. UW computer-science staff members have already requested to participate in the study so that they will be able to track their equipment as it is moved through the building.

Another useful tool mentionned by the author was the Friend Finder. This allows you to see where your friends are, and connect with them much easier than expending the effort to call them and say "hey, where are you." There's another article on Friend Finders at AFP where a new social network site, Gypsii, allows you to track your friends like the police track a fugitive. "The real time location-based element of Gypsii adds a new dimension to the social networking phenomenon," said the founder and chief executive of the company, Dan Harple.

Gypsii is compatible with other big social networking sites, allowing the core location-specific functionality to be transferred to a user's Facebook page, showing their friends' and their own location. The tracking is made possible with (as you can imagine) your friend's mobile phone. The location of a mobile phone can be identified in two ways. The first is via a GPS chip, which allows a device to recognise its position based on communication with a constellation of satellites around the planet. The second is by triangulation. A phone sends signals to communication towers located around it and by measuring the speed with which signals travel to these different base stations a position can be determined.

The ease with which phones can be located -- to within 25-50 metres of their position, say experts -- has sparked a wave of innovation in the mobile phone industry. I am very interested in these technological developments, and can't wait to hear the dialog!

So, what do you think?

THIS CANNOT BE REAL! TSA - DHS Site has been hacked!

THIS CANNOT BE REAL. There's no way that a bureaucracy-laden government agency gets it . . .

I happened across a New York Times Article that covered what they purported to be a blog that was sponsored by the Transportation Safety Administration. The article claimed that the site has links to independent bloggers and real news reports, including negative ones. Allegedly, the site even allows anonymous posters and publicly-viewable comments.

"A whole lot of our employees are really anxious to engage with the public," Mr. Hawley, the Director of the TSA was "quoted" as saying. The NYT writer reported that after the blog went up on Jan. 30, many reader responses were angry and sarcastic. But later, a greater sense of civil discussion set in.

Here's a look at the alleged blog, in case you are inclined to assist me with my quest to root out the real owner. It's called Evolution of Security, and claims "This blog is sponsored by the Transportation Security Administration to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process."

P-Lease . . . do they expect us to believe this nonsense? Having spent several years working in one government position or another, I can tell you that the last thing any government agency wants is to hear what their "customers" think about their "service." It's not like they need to make anyone happy. What would we do if we didn't lke the "service" we got from the TSA -- go to another airport in another country?

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a government employee did ask permission to run with a public blog. The process for approval is so archaic with the government that you literally would rather try to get God and Congress to agree on something. Form after form, approved by no less than five levels of leadership, would have to be completed, reviewed, returned, and resubmitted. The Internet hasn't been around long enough for this to have received approval -- especially in an election year!

And then we're talking the likelihood of accuracy for those posting -- the "meet our bloggers" section shows that none have more than 5 years with the organization. R-i-g-h-t!!!

The URL appears to be spoofed to http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/blog/index.shtm, but I have friendly hackers who are checking into the validity of this. It is also possible that the DHS site itself has been hacked, but I think there would be a little more craziness posted . . . and wouldn't the media have covered this by now? Slashdot covered an incident like this at LAX TSA about a month ago. I wonder why they haven't done a follow-up! Others in the blogosphere have hit on this, but they appear to be buying into the cover-up.

As a taxpayer, I hope that our federal law enforcement agencies swoop down on the perpetrator of this fraudulent site. As a periodic flier, I would love to believe that the crappy attitudes we find so often on the other end of the x-ray machine might somehow change for the good. As someone who believes in the power of The Relationship Economy, I hope that the corporate world takes a serious look at the hurdles they will need to overcome and uses this as an challenge!

This can't be real . . . can it?

What do you think?

Space Invasion -- in Reverse!

The problem with blazing new trails through uncharted territory is Space Invasion. I'm not talking about the online game, I'm referring to my space, the stuff I don't want certain people invading. I'm talking about the stuff that I should control -- not you!

The time as come. You've realized your dream. That property in the mountains that you bought years ago finally has a structure on it that you can spend most of your time calling home. You're able to enjoy the fruits of your labors and sleep in -- past 6 AM. If a neighbor (or, even better, your in-laws) wants to visit, they call first to make sure you are home.

And then you get your first piece of junk mail. No big deal, you think. Just something more for the recycling bin (or the fire-starter pile). You expected a few enterprising people would locate your home, but with no landline phone, cars registered to a P.O. Box, and this being such a remote location, you thought it would take a while.

More junk mail the next day. Even more the next. It's coming from businesses that you have never shopped at, some of them don't even have a presence within 100 miles of you. More for the pile, no big deal. At least they haven't figured out your email address and satellite phone number -- that's sacred ground.

And then the first telemarketer (sorry, the "we're conducting a survey" operator) -- on your satellite phone. That's it, you call the provider and once you get to a manager, you realize that the number for your recent purchase was previously owned by a playboy from South Florida who traveled . . . a lot. You cancel the satellite phone.

And then your first visitor knocks on the door. With a mix of disturb and excitement, you open the door. It's a guy with a vacuum cleaner. You tell him to go away. He asks if he can demo the Dirtfighter 8000 for you before he leaves. You explain to him that you have wood floors and a central vacuum system, and all your vehicles are trucks with plastic floor mats. He persists. Finally, you agree that it is possible for two handfuls of mud to end up on the curtains in the upstairs back guest room where your mother will stay when she comes for her twice yearly visits. You lock the door to the soundproof room behind him and go make some coffee.

Why has it come to this? You just can't seem to get far enough away from these people who have so much faith in their products and so little respect for your time. The vacuum guy seemed nice enough, but his style just caused you to flash back to the super-annoying times of previous decades when you got tired of fielding dozens of calls selling who-knows-what between 6 and 9 PM at least five days a week. Don't the marketers get it? We need our space!

Speaking of space. This same mistake can be seen in the early days of the social networking space. Whether on Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Bebo, or any of the others, the marketing message smells the same in the virtual world as it does in real life. Emma Thelwell reports that Google and other search engines may lose advertising money to social networking sites as businesses shift their marketing focus to social networking. It's funny how the old ways find themselves being applied in the new space . . . Carrie Meathrell 's recent post even seemed a little excited about her discovery that she had been spammed -- on Facebook!

So how do we fix this? I'm thinking fighting fire with fire is the best way. Can you imagine the message that big business would get (or have the opportunity to "get") if thousands of their would-be customers sent them a message in a language they purport to understand? Is there a chance that their procedures would change if a group of folks started using their tactics to convey a very important, business dependent message? I'm thinking that's what it would take.

Jay Deragon notes that business models and structures have historically followed form with traditional media, with the few at the top controlled the conversational content and direction aimed at influencing the masses to behave according to the needs of their markets. He observes that the masses are the markets and the conversations can no longer be controlled, rather the conversations of the people will influence the business markets. So let's try it!

Lets show the business world what we are talking about when we say "let's have a conversation!" Let's communicate, in their language, the requirements that we have in order to form a relationship with them and consider buying their product(s). Here's my example.

Let's say tomorrow I get a direct (snail) mail piece from oh, I don't know, a new restaurant in town. With this approach, I would send them back a letter (I'd have to go buy a stamp -- wonder what they cost now :-) suggesting that they provide their website address so I can check them out. If I received an email -- even an opt-in email, say, from Borders, I would respond by suggesting they take a look at Amazon's strategy -- they make specific suggestions based on what I have purchased in the past, and they tell me how they made the decision to make those recommendations. I have a Borders card, why don't they use it? Or what if I saw a billboard for the political wannabe of your choice. On it, the name and tagline was visible in full color, as well as the people who paid for it, of course. How 'bout if I stuck a billboard up on the candidate's daily route and suggested a website that had a list of campaign promises, the rationale for those promises, and a block for checking completion and the difficulties faced in fulfilling those campaign promises. Yes, they could even put a "click here to donate" button on the site.

Doc Searls' recent post suggests if PR wishes to remain relevant in an environment where networked markets get smarter faster than those that would spin them, the profession needs to define and satisfy a market for something other than spin. I think that means take the time to reshape the model based on what we, the people, take our time to tell you, big business, what we want.

What do you think?