When you're watching the first presidential debate Wednesday night, don't believe what you see. Online, that is. As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama make their inevitable slip-ups and fact-challenged assertions, bring your well-trained skepticism to every computer, cell phone and tablet screen near you.

Jokes that seem to catch fire on their own -- remember Clint Eastwood's invisible Obama from the Republican convention? -- might not be quite so organic. Twitter themes that seem to be everywhere might not be popular so much as purchased. And stinging one-liners that show up in your streams and news feeds might make you chuckle, but they are probably half-truths, and most definitely not a great tool for picking the leader of the Free World.

Even if you aren't on Twitter, virtually all political reporters are, and they increasingly take their cues from it. This is the first presidential election in which social media will play a mainstream role, and it's important to remember not everything is as it seems online.

---

Four years ago, Facebook and Twitter had only just begun to capture the world's imagination (Pew says that 10 percent of the electorate used social media in 2008 to research candidates, and Twitter was scarcely 2 years old on election night). But with this election cycle, the social media giants are now key outlets for candidates to transmit their messages to voters. While social media may appear to offer unfettered, uncontrollable discussion of candidates and their positions, the campaigns are hard at work learning how to manipulate the tools to their advantage. And there's added spice to the Internet element of this season's presidential campaign -- because social media is so new, rules of engagement are lacking.

For example, Barack Obama famously held a surprise virtual town hall on Aug. 29, offering to take questions from Reddit.com users, embracing that site's standard "Ask Me Anything" (AMA) format. The event was unusual because it occurred during the height of the Republican National Convention, breaking the well-established convention that candidates don't upstage each other during their opponent's convention. Obama almost certainly wouldn't have held a traditional press conference that day -- but a Reddit AMA?  Who's to say that was a violation of unwritten politicking rules? When suspicion arose that questions from the AMA might have been less spontaneous than they first appeared, many observers chimed in with cynical reminders that real-world town halls and press conferences also include plants. Who's to say what rules should apply on Reddit?

About the same time, Romney's campaign made what is believed to be the first major campaign purchase of a "sponsored hashtag," attempting to corral discussion on Twitter around the topic "#AreYouBetterOff?" Simultaneously, a parody Twitter account named MexicanMitt was temporarily suspended. A month or two earlier, Romney's number of Twitter followers shot up by a surprising amount. Are such hashtag purchases tasteful? Was suspension of the account coincidental? Is it fair to purchase followers? Again, the online rules aren't clear. 

There is little argument that Obama's campaign, which held an exclusive on grass-roots Internet campaigning last time around, holds a major advantage over Romney on Twitter and Facebook. Some of that is pure demographics -- new Web tools skew younger and more liberal. But some of it is the result of well-timed sarcasm campaigns. Each time Romney trips over his tongue, you can be sure a cascade of social media comedy  -- a "meme," in Internet lingo -- will follow. Sometimes, that's an organic outpouring of creativity. Sometimes, that's the work of an Obama supporter like Matt Ortega. He told Salon earlier this year that he was behind a website named "EtchASketchMittRomney.com," which appeared almost immediately after top Romney aide embarrassingly said that the candidate's campaign positions in the GOP primary could be easily changed, as if they were written on an Etch-A-Sketch. Ortega said he owns dozens of other similarly sarcastic websites, all powered by the pickup they get on Twitter and Facebook. Ortega is a Democratic consultant, but swears the sites are unpaid hobby work.

Turning candidates into punch lines
There's certainly nothing wrong with being funny. Obama's Reddit chat didn't break any rules; neither did Romney's Twitter advertising. But is social media a free-for-all? Perhaps, said Brad Phillips, a media consultant who runs MrMediaTraining.com. But he's not convinced that social media has made things worse. Campaigns have always stretched the rules -- and the truth -- to get any advantage possible, he said.

"Think about the Willie Horton ads (pillorying Michael Dukakis in 1988). So many others," Phillips said. "If the Internet existed in those campaigns, would they have used online tactics? Of course." Nor would campaign managers from elections past have fretted about scheduling a virtual press conference during an opponent's convention, he said. In some ways, he's surprised there hasn't been much evidence presented yet of "dirty tricks" online, such as the whisper campaign during the 2000 primaries alleging that John McCain had an illegitimate child.

On the other hand, Twitter and Facebook have created one huge new avenue for attack, Phillips said -- the power of humor. Once upon a time, the biggest threat to a candidate could be a misstep so bad that it became fodder for late-night TV humor on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show."

While that's still true -- an unplanned appearance on David Letterman's Top 10 List can really hurt -- Twitter and Facebook allow campaigns to create their own late night butt-of-joke moments without needing a comedy writer to see it their way. It's easy to argue that the real damage from Clint Eastwood's halting Republican Convention speech came from the hours of sarcastic Tweets and Facebook discussions that began before Eastwood even finished speaking.

"In the past, you knew a crisis had jumped the firewall when it appeared on late night TV as a joke....that meant the issue had gone beyond being just a story for political types," Phillips said. "You wonder if same dynamic is played out now online. If you can make a candidate a punch line (in social media) you've scored a hit."

Phillips also said sarcastic memes could slowly but surely wear down a candidate's chances, cumulatively building and impression that "a candidate is a joke," which would be hard to counteract.

"Is that clean (campaigning)?" he asked. "I don't know. But in future political cycles, I believe candidates will have to pay a lot more attention to this."

Clean or not, University of Virginia professor and presidential politics expert Larry Sabato has been sharply critical of both campaigns -- and political reporters -- for getting caught up in what he calls the "Gaffe Game." Hunting for the next one-liner is a poor way to evaluate presidential candidates, he says.

"When we tire of Gaffe Game, let's have a POTUS Spelling Bee. Would be about as revealing," he said recently in his own Twitter feed.

Scoring points through sarcasm is hardly new, but Sabato believes social media has indeed accelerated the gaffe obsession in this election cycle.

"Many people are on (Twitter) for hours every day. Do they make it worse? Is the pope German? They drain every gaffe of every ounce of meaning and political advantage," he said. "Every time a candidate has a blunder or tongue-twister, Twitter explodes with commentary defending and deriding the candidate."

On the other hand, there is hope, Sabato thinks. Social media seems to accelerate the news cycle, too, meaning that gaffes come and go quicker than they would in the past.

"They … destroy the gaffe quickly -- it burns itself out on Twitter faster than it would otherwise," he said.

Campaign zingers now 140 characters?
So does social media help or hurt the election process? Naturally, it's impossible to say. But it's important to note that voters shouldn't be fooled by what might seem like more personal connections offered by candidates through Facebook "Likes," "personal" e-mails and Tweets. In Phillips' impression, candidates are far more sterilized and prepackaged than ever.

"The candidates are so carefully controlled, access to them is controlled, they are trying to prevent any kind of YouTube moment. (Candidates' moves) are planned within an inch of their lives," he lamented. It's hard to believe that only five presidents ago, reporter Sam Donaldson and President Ronald Reagan sparred during fairly spontaneous press conferences. And vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro spent two hours answering reporters' questions about her tax returns.

Today's candidates usually hide behind carefully orchestrated digital personas, lobbing one-liners over the wall in an attempt to slowly move the needle on the small number of undecided voters who will swing the election.

"Candidates are giving away the ability to have a knockout fantastic answer," he said. "They are just trying to advance in inches not in yards," he said.

That raises the discouraging possibility that the key to who wins and who loses on Nov. 6 could be which candidate comes up with the best joke that fits in 140 characters or fewer.

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

 More from Red Tape Chronicles:

• Mom forces TSA to shell out $3.99 for confiscated peanut butter
• Why your next 'Passw0rd' may not be a password
• Airlines charge passengers 'you-get-to-sit-with-your-kids' fee
• Revealed: The real source of Apple IDs leaked by Anonymous
• The truth comes out: CEO says 'stupid' consumers deserve big fees
• Firms' deletion of online critiques draws cries of 'censorship'
• Poll: Cellphone users dump apps to spare privacy, then lose phones
• At Tampa convention, protesters can carry guns, but not puppets

 

Welcome to the hangout on social media and privacy, powered by Google+, conducted on May 18. 

Our panelists are: Bob Sullivan, author of msnbc.com's Red Tape Chronicles, Jeff Fox of Consumers Union and Steve Rubel of the public relations firm Edelman. You can read a bit more about them below:

Questions were submitted at msnbc.com's Google Hangout or by tweeting using the hashtag #talkprivacy.

---

• Bob Sullivan is an award-winng journalist and author of The Red Tape Chronicles on msnbc.com. He also is the author of three books, including the 2008 New York Times Best-Seller, "Gotcha Capitalism," and the 2010 New York Times Best Seller, "Stop Getting Ripped Off!"
• Steve Rubel, executive vice president for global strategy and insights at Edelman, the world’s largest independent public relations firm. He’s also a frequent social media commentator.
• Jeff Fox, technology editor at Consumers Union. He was responsible for this month’s Consumer Reports cover story on Facebook and privacy. 

A mother who says her middle-school daughter was forced to let school officials browse the 13-year-old girl’s private Facebook page is speaking out against the practice because, she says, "other parents are scared to talk about it."

Pam Broviak, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Geneva, Ill., says her daughter was traumatized when the principal of Geneva Middle School South forced the child to log in to her Facebook account, then rummaged through the girl's private information.

"What a violation of my daughter's privacy this whole episode was," Broviak said. The incident took "a huge toll on my daughter, who ended up crying through most of the rest of the day and therefore missed most of her classes. She was embarrassed and very upset."

There have been several descriptions lately of Facebook prying by schools – and one lawsuit was filed recently by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff against a school district that allegedly demanded a student’s social media passwords. But Broviak may be the first parent to go public with concerns about what she sees as serious violations of student privacy.

---

In a conversation with msnbc.com, Broviak said she confronted school officials about the incident involving her daughter soon after it occurred last fall and was told that they routinely investigate student issues by asking kids to log into their social networking pages -- or cellphones -- in the presence of administrators. And she said her daughter and other students told her they are frequently called into the principal’s office and told that they can’t leave until they surrender their passwords or unlock their phones and allow school officials to browse their personal information.

"(Students) let them see the accounts because otherwise, they are not allowed to leave the room. And that is just wrong," she said.

Kent Mutchler, superintendent of Geneva schools, said in an interview with msnbc.com that he couldn't comment on Broviak’s daughter because privacy rules prevent him from publicly discussing an individual student’s situation. But he said Broviak's description of district policy is inaccurate.

"We would never demand someone's password. When you have someone's password, you open yourself up to other issues," Mutchler said. "But if we have a disruptive situation, a school (official) will ask to see the page, and if the student refuses, we call the parents."

But principals only request access to students' social media pages under extreme circumstances, Mutchler said.

"There are different levels of concern. If there is a drug trafficking suspicion, we'll get the police involved. If it's something like cyberbullying, we'll say, 'This has been reported to us,' and ask to see the page," he said.

Often, students volunteer before they are even asked, he said.

"We ask, 'Is there something you want to show us?' that sort of thing. And they volunteer," he said. 

Such incidents are very rare among district middle schools, he said, contradicting Broviak's assertion that the inspections are commonplace. 

"It happens a half-dozen to a dozen times per year," he said.

Broviak's public complaint comes at a time when schools, employers and lawmakers around the country are wrestling with sticky privacy issues surrounding social networks. The state Legislature in Illinois is considering legislation that would make it illegal for employers to demand access to workers’ or applicants’ private social media information. That law is silent on the issue of schools and social media snooping, but federal legislation introduced last month by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., would extend the protections to students, too.

Submit your questions about social media and privacy, then join our Google+ Hangout Friday at 4 p.m. ET.

Broviak said she didn't think school officials should ever look at a child's personal social media page or cellphone without first contacting parents.

"It's just wrong for them to do this, but parents are afraid to talk about it, because they are worried, 'Are they going to target my kid?'" she said.

Additionally, she said, looking at a kids' social media page violates an entire family's privacy, even if school officials don’t intend to look at posts involving other family members.

"The whole family is exposed in this," she said. "Some families communicate through Facebook. What if her aunt was going through a divorce or had an illness? And now there's these anonymous people reading through this information."

When the first incident occurred in the fall, Broviak said she didn't know what to do -- and initially chose to let it drop for fear that complaining might make things worse for her daughter. But she said reports from her daughter that other kids have been treated the same way and a recent spate of news stories surrounding the issue pushed her to speak up. Three weeks ago she published a detailed accounting of events on her personal blog, and this week agreed to be interviewed by msnbc.com.

"It's really important for people to talk about this and know what's going on," she said. "And I'm really glad that the state Legislature and Congress are considering laws to deal with this."

Her daughter, meanwhile, has learned an important but sad lesson through this experience, Broviak said.

"It's taught her to use better judgment with adults," she said. "Basically, what (they) showed her was you can’t trust anyone. Her trust in and the respect of the adults at her school has been shattered to the point that she is struggling to look beyond this abuse and allow for the education process to occur."

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

A 12-year-old Minnesota girl was reduced to tears while school officials and a police officer rummaged through her private Facebook postings after forcing her to surrender her password, an ACLU lawsuit alleges. 

The claims are the latest in a string of tales showing that even password-protected, private online activities might not be safe from curious government agencies and schools. (See last week’s story)

The girl, whose identity is withheld in the lawsuit, came home "crying, depressed, angry, scared and embarrassed" after she was intimidated into divulging her login information by a school counselor and a deputy sheriff, who arrived in uniform, armed with a Taser, the lawsuit alleges.

"(The student now) fears that the school could make her give up her passwords at a moment's notice, at any time, for any reason," the lawsuit claims.  It also alleges that password prying is standard practice at the Minnewaska Middle School, which the student still attends. "(Officials) have compelled other students to disclose their private information and have accessed students' online accounts on multiple occasions," it states.

---

Officials at the Minnewaska Area School District -- which is about 125 miles northwest of Minneapolis -- say the ACLU's version of events is "one-sided," and that the school acted to "prevent disruption," according to a statement e-mailed to msnbc.com by Superintendent Gregory Ohl. 

"The district is confident that once all the facts come to light, the district's conduct will be found to be reasonable and appropriate," it said.  

When asked if the district has obtained other students’ login information, he responded, “We feel this is not accurate.”

The lawsuit raises the complicated -- and quite unsettled -- legal quandary that balances students' constitutional rights with schools' needs to maintain order and a positive educational environment. For example, can schools punish students who publicly criticize school officials on their own time using social networks?

Federal district courts have handed down contradictory decisions on that issue. Facing a chance to settle the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to hear three cases on the issue.

But private social media criticism, intended only for a limited audience behind a password or a privacy wall, raises a different legal issue, said Teresa Nelson, a lawyer for the ACLU in Minnesota.  

"The notion that it was a search of her private Facebook content ... the Fourth Amendment applies," she said.  "The government has to have a really good reason to do that kind of search," and would need a court order in most cases, she said.

Monitor 'was mean to me'
According to the ACLU's version of events, the girl had moved and entered a new school as a 6th-grade student in the fall of 2010. In early 2011, she felt targeted by a school monitor and posted an update to her friends-only Facebook wall saying she "hated" the monitor because "she was mean to me," using her own computer and while off campus.

Soon after, she was called into the principal's office -- he had obtained a screen shot of the post -- and given detention.

The student subsequently posted another update to her page related to the incident: "I want to know who the f%$# told on me," the complaint says. Again, she was called to the principal's office, and this time was suspended for "insubordination" and banned from a class ski trip.

In March, the student had a second run-in with school authorities.  The parent of another student had complained that the girl was talking about sex with that student.  The 12-year-old was called out of class by a school counselor and eventually brought into a room with several school officials and the sheriff's deputy, where the password demands began.

The ACLU claims that the school never asked the girl's parents for permission to examine her private Facebook space. The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission.

"Any viewing of (the student's) Facebook account was done with the express consent of her parents," it said in the statement to msnbc.com.

In the First Amendment fight over online criticism related to school, districts and parents are relying on legal interpretations of an outdated 1969 Supreme Court decision knows as “Tinker,” which gives students wide latitude to criticize.  That decision famously gave us the phrase, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."  The opinion offers little guidance about rights on the other side of a firewall or a Facebook password, however.

The Tinker case basically found that students can say what they want as long as the speech doesn't cause a disruption at school.  But can a school's ability to punish students extend to activity conducted entirely off school grounds?

Dozens of cases over the last decade have failed to hash out the online version of this debate.  In one, a Pennsylvania student who was suspended for making a MySpace page that mocked a principal was granted a reprieve because the U.S. Court of Appeals found it wasn't disruptive. In another, a West Virginia student's suspension was upheld after she created a MySpace page where students were encouraged to discuss if a fellow classmate had herpes. 

Legal confusion
Even though the National School Boards Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals on these two cases in an attempt to break what seems like a legal tie, the nation's top court demurred, leaving behind a lot of legal confusion.

"Things are complicated," said the ACLU’s Nelson. "Kids have been criticizing school officials since there have been school officials. ... If kids had been venting about teachers at McDonald's no one would care."

One important distinction noted by Nelson: While she believes demands for a student's Facebook password were a clear Fourth Amendment violation, there's no constitutional issue raised by a school official learning about a private communication that's volunteered by another student. In other words, students' private Facebook chatter is only as private as the participants make it.

The ACLU of Minnesota offers a rights handbook to students who use social media. While it's specifically applicable only to Minnesota law, its principles are universal.

The pamphlet notes that while school officials in most cases cannot force students to reveal their Facebook login information, officials can search for evidence of violations "if they have reasonable individualized suspicion" about an ongoing violation of school rules. 

And while free speech rights may prevent schools from banning students from classes because of non-disruptive but critical Facebook posts, those legal protections do not extend to extracurricular activities. In other words, football players and math club members can be kicked off their squads for anything a school official deems against policy.

It's important to note that while Facebook's terms of service say members cannot give out their passwords or otherwise allow others to view private areas of their accounts. But those same terms say members must be 13 years old to join.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

 

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.

---

Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts. Schools are also turning to social media monitoring companies with names like UDilligence and Varsity Monitor for software packages that automate the task. The programs offer a "reputation scoreboard" to coaches and send "threat level" warnings about individual athletes to compliance officers.

A recent revision in the handbook at the University of North Carolina is typical:

"Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings,” it reads. "The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts."

All this scrutiny is too much for Bradley Shear, a Washington D.C.-lawyer who says both schools and employers are violating the First Amendment with demands for access to otherwise private social media content.

"I can't believe some people think it's OK to do this,” he said. “Maybe it's OK if you live in a totalitarian regime, but we still have a Constitution to protect us. It's not a far leap from reading people's Facebook posts to reading their email. ... As a society, where are we going to draw the line?"

Aside from the free speech concerns, Shear also thinks colleges take on unnecessary liability when they aggressively monitor student posts.

"What if the University of Virginia had been monitoring accounts in the Yeardley Love case and missed signals that something was going to happen?” he said, referring to a notorious campus murder. “What about the liability the school might have?"

Shear has gotten the attention of Maryland state legislators, who have proposed two separate bills aimed at banning social media access by schools and potential employers. The ACLU is aggressively supporting the bills.

"This is an invasion of privacy. People have so much personal information on their pages now. A person can treat it almost like a diary," said Goemann, the Maryland ACLU legislative director. "And (interviewers and schools) are also invading other people's privacy. They get access to that individual’s posts and all their friends. There is a lot of private information there."

Maryland's Department of Corrections policy first came to light last year, when corrections officer Robert Collins complained to the ACLU that he was forced to surrender his Facebook user name and password during an interview. The state agency suspended the policy for 45 days, and eventually settled on the “shoulder-surfing” substitute.

"My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts  and those of our friends just to keep our jobs," Collins said to the ACLU at the time.

Agency spokesman Rick Binetti confirmed the new policy, but wouldn't comment on it or the proposed law which may ban it.

It's easy to see why an agency that hires prison guards would want to sneak a peek at potential employees’ private online lives. Goemann said that prisons are trying to avoid hiring guards with potential gang ties -- the agency told the ACLU it had reviewed 2,689 applicants via social media, and denied employment to seven because of items found on their pages.

"All seven of these individuals' social media applications contained pictures of them showing verified gang signs (signs commonly known to law enforcement which are utilized by gangs)," the Department of Corrections told the ACLU  in response to questions it asked about the program. It stressed the voluntary nature of social media inspection, noting that five of the 80 employees hired in the last three hiring cycles didn't provide access.

For student athletes, though, the access isn't voluntary. No access, no sports.

"They're saying to students if you want to play, you have to friend a coach. That's very troubling," said Shear, the D.C. lawyer.  "A good analogy for this, in the offline world, would it be acceptable for schools to require athletes to bug their off-campus apartments? Does a school have a right to know who all your friends are?"

There have been many high-profile embarrassing moments born of the toxic combination of student-athletes and Twitter. North Carolina defensive lineman Marvin Austin tweeted about expensive purchases on his account two years ago, then became subject of an NCAA investigation about improper conduct with a player agent. The incident led, in part, to the school's aforementioned aggressive social media policy.

So it’s not surprising that many schools want to keep a careful eye on what students are posting online.

But avoiding an uncomfortable moment is not a good enough reason to squash free speech, Spear says. Plenty of settled case law in the U.S. sides with students' rights to express themselves publicly, he said, including numerous cases involving student newspapers.  Public displays of protest are also protected: A landmark 1969 Supreme Court decisions known as Tinker vs. the Des Moines School District said school officials couldn't prevent students from wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War as long as they weren't inciting violence.

Colleges have legitimate concerns about the things students post on social media accounts, but they should "deal with that issue the way they deal with everything else. They should educate," Shear said.

"Schools are in the business of educating, not spying," he added. "We don't hire private investigators to follow students wherever they go. If students say stupid things online, they should educate them ... not engage in prior restraint."

Goemann also noted that the rush to social media monitoring raises an often overlooked legal concern: It's against Facebook's Terms of Service.

"You will not share your password ... let anyone else access your account or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account," the site says in its policies. 

Frederic Wolens, a Facebook spokesman, wouldn't comment on the Maryland legislative proposals, but he said many of these school and employer policies appear to violate the site's terms.

"Under our terms, only the holder of the email address and password is considered the Facebook account owner. We also prohibit anyone from soliciting the login information or accessing an account belonging to someone else," he said in a statement to msnbc.com. Wolens said Facebook has yet to take a position on collegiate social media monitoring.

Social media monitoring on colleges, while spreading quickly among athletic departments, seems to be limited to athletes at the moment. There's nothing stopping schools from applying the same policies to other students, however.  And Shear says he's heard from college applicants that interviewers have requested Facebook or Twitter login information during in-person screenings.

The practice seems less common among employers, but scattered incidents are gaining attention from state lawmakers. The blog Tecca.com last year showed what it said was an image of an application for a clerical job with a North Carolina police department that included the following question:

"Do you have any web page accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.?  If so, list your username and password." 

And the state of Illinois has followed Maryland's lead and is considering similar legislation to ban social media password demands by employers. 

But Shear says a patchwork of state laws isn't good enough when the stakes are this high.

"We need a federal law dealing with this," he said. "After 9/11, we have a culture where some people think it's OK for the government to be this involved in our lives, that it's OK to turn everything over to the government. But it's not. We still have privacy rights in this country, and we still have a Constitution."

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.  

Facebook is apparently getting a lot more unfriendly.

Users are getting a lot more selective, deleting comments, photo tags and even friends at a record rate, according to a new study released Friday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Pew is calling this phenomenon "the pruning" of social networks, and the study includes findings like this: 63 percent of users have unfriended people from their friends users. Another 44 percent have deleted comments made by others from their profile page, and 37 percent have removed tags from photos.

"Social network users are becoming more active in pruning and managing their accounts," says the report, written by Mary Madden, senior research specialist at Pew.

---

Users are also taking an active role in keeping their private information private, with 58 percent of users saying they use high-level privacy settings so only friends can view their pages. Women are far more restrictive, with 67 percent using the tightest privacy settings, compared to 48 percent of men. They lock down their accounts despite the fact that half of all users say they have "some difficulty" using the privacy controls.

The research seems to suggest that U.S. adults, who have so far shown little appetite for actively managing their personal privacy, are starting to get the hang of it.

"Social science researchers have long noted a major disconnect in attitudes and practices around information privacy online. When asked, people say that privacy is important to them; when observed, people’s actions seem to suggest otherwise," the report noted. The shift to more privacy on Facebook seems to belie this long-standing trend.

Perhaps regret has something to do with that.  The report found that 11 percent of Facebook users say they've posted something that they regret on a social network. Men are twice as likely to say so (15 percent to 8 percent). Users 50 and older, at 5 percent, are much less likely than young adults under 29 (15 percent), to express such regret. 

One area where there was a surprising lack of age gap: Overall privacy settings. While 23 percent of users 65 and over choose fully public settings, 22 percent of users 18-29make the same choice.

"The choices that adults make regarding their privacy settings are also virtually identical to those of teenage social media users," the report said.  "Private settings are the norm, regardless of age."

Young adults are more likely to "unfriend," however at 71 percent, compared to just 41 percent for the oldest users.

The Pew report is based on a survey of 2,277 U.S. adults conducted in May, and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.  In nearly all "pruning" related categories, and within nearly all age groups, use of privacy-related tools gained ground since the last time Pew conducted the study in 2009. Back then, only 30 percent of all users had untagged a photo, compared to 37 percent in 2011; and 56 percent had unfriended someone, compared to 63 percent in 2011. 

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.  

You already have an "insurance score." You have an "Employment Credit Score."  There's even a "MedFICO," which attempts to predict whether you’ll actually pay your doctor’s bills.  Now that a "Facebook score" has been invented,  I expect a "Grocery Habits score" and a "Music Taste" score to arrive any time now.

These scores probably hurt you more than help you, and in ways that are kept secret from you.  To borrow a phrase from today's big pop-culture story, American businesses are suffering from "Score-sanity."  And you are suffering the consequences.

In case you missed it, researchers at three U.S. colleges say they've figured out a way to predict future job success by scoring applicants' Facebook profile pages. This wasn't a mere exercise in finding embarrassing college photos. The profs created five categories that map to character traits which often lead to success at work: Conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion and openness. Then, people were boiled down to a "personality score," which may as well be called a Facebook score.  Surprise! The score did a decent job of mapping to employee reviews six months later.

---

Donald Kluemper, a management professor at Northern Illinois University, said he doesn’t want human resources departments to begin using Facebook scores, which have so far been tested on only 56 people. But as my colleague Eve Tahmincioglu said so well, "It may be hard to put the Facebook personality cat back in the hiring bag."

We already know that U.S.-based hiring managers routinely browse Facebook while screening applicants (something that is illegal in Germany). A scoring system that automates that process, and promises to take human error out of it, will be just too tempting. 

 

Today is not the day to debate the wisdom of the “Moneyball-ization” of America, the wisdom of our newfound romance with everything and anything that fits into a database.  My main concern with Facebook scores -- as it is with insurance scores -- is the lack of transparency. Odds are that you pay more for your auto insurance than you should if your credit score is low. How much more? No one knows, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that auto insurance companies don't have to tell you. Insurers have decided that credit scores are a good predictor of future insurance claims, and punish drivers based on that.  But they don't have to tell them what the low-score penalty is.

Soon, some workers will face mysterious troubles getting past the first round of interviews, and have no idea why.  The cause could be an embarrassing photo in a social media profile. But based on this new research, it could that they don't discuss classic literature often enough in their timeline, or they don't have 700 friends. 

Study after study shows that while Americans claim to care about privacy, they don't.  Fewer than 10 percent change their behavior in an attempt to preserve their privacy; another  third essentially believe: "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?" 

Your Facebook score is the answer.

Professor Daniel Solove of George Washington University, who studies the intersection of privacy and policy, has found that most young Facebook users aren't worried about the things they post online because they have a naive faith that it won't hurt them later in life.  They believe no hiring manager would hold some random Tweet against them. They are wrong.  An HR department facing a stack of 100 resumes for one job would love a numerical tool that could automatically whittle the pile to five or six.  HR departments already do some of this whittling based on credit reports.

When young people tell me they have nothing to hide, I often ask them about their music  tastes. Most use iTunes, and increasingly use subscription services like Spotify. These firms know everything about their music tastes.  It is a very small leap to imagine these companies selling this data to employment background firms, which might then find a correlation between the bands that subjects listen to and their likelihood they'll habitually be late to work. Suddenly, a private allegiance to Megadeth could become a debilitating problem for an innocent worker who would have no idea why the rejection letters won't stop.

"No fair," folks often reply.

"But quite legal," I respond. Due to a quirk in the law (thanks to a very embarrassing Supreme Court nomination proceeding for Robert Bork), video rental records cannot be shared and sold in this manner. Thank God, otherwise Netflix would have done this long ago.  But music, social media posts, blog comments -- all these things are fair game to be sold, shared, jammed into a spreadsheet, and used to raise your health insurance rates or block you from a promotion.  Bought a lot of ice cream in 2008-2013? Watch those health insurance rates rise in 2020.

Maybe that's a good thing. To be fair, some people with higher credit scores do pay less for auto insurance because of this system. We can bicker about the wisdom of data mining and correlations. But we can't bicker about this: None of this is transparent.  No laws are in place to make sure this is fair.  No one has debated the wisdom of allowing social network activity to influence employment prospects (while other societies have decided against it). And most important, no one has made the rules clear for consumers.

There is a model for this. In the credit world, when consumers are denied a loan because of a low credit score, they are entitled to receive a "notice of adverse action." They are also entitled to see a copy of the credit report used in the decision.  Now is the time to think about regulations to ensure such consumer rights in this even-expanding world of "Score-sanity."  If someone's job prospects are hurt by the number of Tweets they publish on the New York Yankees, they should know. They should be entitled to a copy of their "Facebook Score" and the report that goes with it. 

I know companies which create such reports view them as proprietary, as the secret sauce they sell, and they fear that if consumers learn how the system works, they'll try to game the system. Tough. We’re talking about lives and livelihoods here. 

Correction: An initial version of this report said HR departments use credit scores when considering applicants. They use credit reports without a credit score.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

Most people think they'll never fall for a scam. In fact, that frame of mind is precisely what con artists look for. Those who believe that they know better are often the last to raise their defenses when criminals are nearby. Yes, Virginia, people lose money online. A lot of it. They wire cash to London, they can't help investigating the one-in-a-million chance they really are related to a dead prince from Africa, and they sometimes even travel to Nigeria to find out. Just in case.

Many of the scams you read about are sensational, such as the silly "hit man" scam created by real amateurs (recipients get an e-mail that says send me all your money or I'll kill you).  And you've also seen lists that offer oddly skewed results, such as the recent FBI announcement that scammers pretending to be FBI agents are now the most prevalent Internet crime. You'd figure those numbers are a bit exaggerated because victims of FBI scams are a bit more likely to report those scams to the agency.

Fantastic stories like these only serve to convince many consumers to let their guard down even more, helping to increase the pool of marks for the professional scammers.

I know, because I hear from victims all the time.  My inbox is littered with people whose notes say,"I know I should have known better, but ...." And with that, they beg me for help restoring their ravaged bank accounts. In fact, every single victim I've ever interviewed says they had an inkling that something was wrong from the outset, but they ignored that feeling. That's why the single most important factor in avoiding fraud is this: Learn to trust the feeling in the pit of your stomach.

---

Usually, I can't help restore those bank accounts. But I can help you, if your turn hasn't come up yet.  And even if you are convinced you'd never fall for any online con, someone in your circle of friends or family is vulnerable. Please forward this story to him or her.

Because I hear from so many victims all year long, I know what people really fall for. Here are the top 5 ways cyberthieves separate people from their money, based on my 12 years of writing about Net cons.

1.)   Online dating scams

Anyone out there never done anything dumb for love?  If you are raising your hand, congratulations. You may now relinquish your credentials as a human being.  The rest of you should read on.

Love-based cons are the easiest to perpetrate. Why? Because love always involves a leap of faith -- trusting something you can't see or touch. Just like Internet scams.  For years, criminals have made haunts out of dating services and lonely-hearts chat rooms.  Broken-hearted folks are rarely in their right minds, so they make easy targets.

I once knew the FBI agent in charge of investigating cyber-love scams.  He put it this way:  Men could learn a lot from con artist lovers. They send flowers and candy constantly while wooing a mark (purchased with stolen credit cards, of course).  Gifts really do put women in an agreeable state of mind, he assured me.

Some cons spend months grooming their marks, waiting until after several "I love yous" before asking for $800 to be wired to the passport office in London to help clear up a paperwork mess so he can come to America for a visit.

Yes, it all sounds ridiculous. It's not. It's so profitable that criminals actually pay monthly fees on some dating services. Generally, the more you pay for a service the fewer criminals you'll see, and free Craigslist personal ads tend to be a cesspool. But I've heard from victims who never joined a dating service but were still conned into fake love from perfectly innocent-sounding places like Facebook groups or chat rooms devoted to hobbies like stitching or horses. It all starts with a simple e-mail, perhaps enhanced by a little Facebook research ("Hey, you love the New York Islanders and the Beatles, too! Wow")

Since I've written about this scam many times, I've even heard from concerned family members who beg me to talk the deluded lover down off the cliff when he or she is about to send a bunch of money to a scammer. Usually, I fail. Love is blind; it's also really, really stubborn.

In the latest flavor of the scam, when a deluded lover actually wises up and confronts the criminal, he or she admits to the crime but then adds this twist: "Yes, at first it was just a con, but while we were talking I've really fallen in love with you."

For a whole lot more on this insidious, more-common-than-you'd-believe crime, visit romancescams.org. The group, founded by former victims, has been fighting back for nearly 10 years. They post blacklisted photos there, e-mail addresses and typical opening lines from scammers , and lots of additional helpful scam-fighting tools. If you fall in love and have any doubts, visit the site.

2.)  Fake or "rogue" anti-virus software

We've all seen the pop-ups: "Your computer is infected! Get help now!"

If you've ever clicked through such an ad (really, a hijacking), you know that the price for freedom is $20 or $30 a month.  At first, the ads were clunky and the threats idle. But now, many pop-ups are perfect replicas of windows you would see from Windows or an antivirus product. Some sites actually employ so-called ransomware, which disables your PC until you pay up or disinfect it with a strong antivirus product. That's why consumers forked over hundreds of millions of dollars to fake antivirus distributors in 2009, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Your best bet?  Make a plan now.  This is the one scam that just about anyone can fall for.  The best protection of all is to back up your important files, so the day your computer is hacked, your digital life won't be on the line.  It's also important to have a fire extinguisher nearby.  A second PC or laptop is often your best help when disaster strikes.  Many viruses disable Internet access, so you'll need a second computer to research your infection and download disinfectant software.  Have a flash drive nearby, too, so you can move the inoculation from one computer to the other.

Meanwhile, if you aren't paying for antivirus software, at least employ one of the popular free products like AVG or Windows Defender.

3.)  Facebook impersonation

Facebook is no longer a Web site -- it's a full-fledged platform, rapidly approaching the scale of the Internet itself. Many young users spend more time on Facebook than on e-mail, and actually use Facebook as their e-mail service.  That means scammers are now crawling all over the service, since they always go where the people go.  There are hundreds of Facebook scams, such as phishing e-mails, Trojan horse infections, misleading advertisements and so on.

But the crime you should most worry about is Facebook impersonation. A criminal who hacks into your Facebook account can learn a staggering amount of information about you. Worse yet, he or she can gain trusted access to friends and family.  We've seen plenty of stories that show Facebook friends can easily be tricked into sending money in response to believable pleas for help.

For this reason, it's time to upgrade your Facebook password. Treat it like an online banking site, because it's not a stretch to say that a criminal who hacks your Facebook account is only one small step away from stealing your money ("Hello, First National Bank, I've lost my password. But my high school mascot is the Owl and my mother's maiden name is Smith. Oh, and my first girlfriend's name was Mary. Can you reset the password now?")

4.) Becoming a bot

You may not know it, but your computer might be a criminal.  Botnets -- armies of hijacked home computers that send out spam or commit other crimes -- remain the biggest headache for security professionals. The various botnets ebb and flow in size, but at any given time, tens of millions of computers on the Web are under the influence of a criminal. No one thinks it's their PC, of course, but look at the odds. If one estimate claiming 100 million infections is accurate, then about one out of every 20 computers in the world is infected.  In other words, someone in your extended family is aiding and abetting a spammer.

How can this be? Victims typically don't notice the criminal activity.  Cyberthieves can easily use your machine without leaving a trace or slowing down your PC performance. They do not deposit e-mails in your sent items folder. Instead of sending 1 million e-mails from your machine, they send one e-mail every hour from 1 million infected machines.

Any honest antivirus company will tell you that there is so much new malicious software created every day that the good guys simply can't keep up. The Web is jammed full of e-mails and Web sites that can turn your home computer into a bot. Your PC could very easily be safe today but at risk tomorrow. That's why it's so important to keep your computer's security tools up to date. But you shouldn't assume that this will keep you 100 percent safe. Avoid the Web's seedier side, and don't let the kids download illegal music or games, a main source of infections. And always keep on the lookout for strange programs, files or surprising hiccups from your machine.

5) The fakosphere

The Web is now littered with fake blogs, fake ads, fake acai berry products, fake work-at-home jobs and fake Web sites saying how great all these things are. You'll even see ads for such products on all major media Web sites, as they've become the Web's answer to late-night infomercials.

The FTC recently issued an opinion clarifying that fake testimonials on Web sites are a violation of federal law, and some of the over-the-top ads have disappeared. But the fakosphere is far from dead.

I know it's tempting to obey one rule that will make your tummy flat, make your bank account fat or make your cancer disappear.  But you can't believe everything you read online.  Never purchase a product without searching Google using this search term:  "(Product name) scam" and "(Product Name) complaint."  Then, spend three minutes familiarizing yourself with the reputation of the item you are about to buy and the price you are about to pay.  One or two complaints might say one thing, but 500 complaints should certainly scream at you that you should put that credit card back in your wallet.

Here are a few other top scam lists worth checking:

* Top 12 scams at BillShrink
* The Times (UK) top scam list
* FBI top scams list

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.

You don't hear the words "poodle," "tinfoil hat," and First Amendment in the same sentence often, but they are indeed linked in a classic Facebook melodrama.

Dale Blank runs a Facebook page devoted to accumulating as many fans as possible for a farcical picture of a beloved poodle named Bitsy sporting a tin hat -- perhaps a bit like the one you might mentally draw on someone who was espousing tiresome conspiracy theories.

Blank's intentionally clumsy Photoshop job, and his quest for fans, has a specific target -- Fox News broadcaster Glenn Beck.  On Feb. 8, Blank created the page with the stated intention of proving that his tin-hatted poodle could accumulate more Facebook fans than Beck, a favorite among conservative talk-show fans.

Within a week, thanks to several bumps from the blogosphere, the poodle was well on his way, claiming nearly 300,000 fans -- and enjoying logarithmic growth. Beck's page stands at about 500,000.

---

(Full disclosure: both easily dwarf the Bob Sullivan fan page, which sits at a modest 3,400.  Take from that what you will).

But on Feb. 18, the Facebook police arrived and broke up the party. Blank's page wasn't removed, but it was "publish-blocked."  He could no longer post updates or solicit fans in other Facebook ways. The fan-base growth ground to a halt.

That put the tin-hatted poodle at the center of a dispute over First Amendment free speech rights and censorship. There were virtual howls that Facebook was actively siding with Glen Beck over the Poodle, that perhaps someone at Facebook was siding with the conservatives, or at least had developed a hatred for left-wing sarcasm.

In the grand tradition of the Internet, that's overstating things a bit. Facebook, as a private company, has wide latitude in its ability to take down posts and pages that it decides run afoul of its terms of service.  Even Blank said he doesn't want to raise the possibility of a conservative, subversive anti-poodle attack -- that's just the kind of knee-jerk reaction he's trying to mock.

"I'm not coming from a place where I think everything is a conspiracy," said Blank, who lives near Milwaukee.  In fact, he didn't really have his heart set on poking fun of Beck. He simply picked the most popular target, in part to demonstrate how cheap popularity is on the Internet and on Facebook.  "I'm not so much anti-Glenn Beck as I am pro rational thought."

Still, the conspiracy theories appeared.  It didn't help that Facebook initially failed to give Blank an explanation for taking away his ability to publish. Then, when an explanation finally arrived this week, its vagueness only added fuel to the fire.

"A Facebook administrator looks into each report thoroughly in order to decide the appropriate course of action. If no violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities has occurred, then no warning will be sent," wrote a woman identifying herself as Marissa from Facebook's User Operations department, according to an e-mail provided by Blank. "If a violation has occurred, then a warning or more severe actions are taken. Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, we are unable to provide details regarding the removed content. We apologize for any inconvenience."

Blank wasn't buying that.

"Technical and security reasons? That's just a cover for the real reason," he said. "I like to think it's not a political thing. When I see some of the pages out there devoted to (criticizing President Obama) that haven't been publish-blocked, you wonder a little.  But I don't want to delve into that.  I just want to know why I was blocked."

Facebook offered a generic explanation to msnbc.com in an e-mail.

"Pages are meant for entities like public figures, musical artists, businesses, and organizations so they can share information, interact with fans, and create a highly engaging presence on Facebook.  They're distinct from groups or personal profiles and designed specifically for these entities' needs to communicate, distribute content, engage fans, and capture new audiences virally through fans' recommendations to their friends," the statement said. "We restrict the publishing rights of Pages that impersonate other entities, represent generic concepts, spam users, or otherwise violate our Pages guidelines.  Unless they also violate our content policies, however, these Pages are left up so that those who are interested in seeing their updates and interacting with them can still do so. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for our users."

Some might find that explanation vague as well. But before providing some helpful speculation on Facebook's actions, it seems necessary to offer some context for Blank's Poodle-vs.-Beck vote-off.  When creating the page, Blank drew on a Facebook fan-building technique that's been around at least since January.

The "bet this can get more votes than that" format has exploded in popularity in recent weeks. There's even another Facebook page that asks, "Can this dung beetle get more fans than Glenn Beck?"  But Beck is hardly the only target.  The trend appears to have taken off with a page devoted to discerning whether a picture of a pickle -- yes, the kind you eat -- could amass more fans than the Canadian band Nickelback. The pickle, with 2.6 million sign-ups, has won the battle, at least for now.

Nor are the groups limited to witty liberals or music haters. A group allowing people to vote for a picture of a steak over the animal rights group PETA has amassed hundreds of thousands of sign ups.

 To its credit, Facebook has recently taken a hard stand against the presence of hate groups on its site, and is working much more quickly to remove offensive material.  That, in some cases, includes pages which serve no purpose other than to criticize famous people or organizations. Facebook users have reacted by creating these "this can get more fans than that" as a clever end-around to counter elimination of these "hater" pages. So Blank thinks that Facebook might be putting a halt to these new pages, too.

Blank spent a lot of time reading the Facebook policy for fan pages. They require that a fan page be devoted to some kind of sincere commercial enterprise, and the creator have a real link to that enterprise.  The rules became an issue during the Olympics, when a user created a fan page devoted to the wacky Norwegian Olympic team's curling pants. Facebook temporarily shut the page down, until the creator linked to a Web site selling the pants.

Blank feels he's satisfied the requirement by purchasing the domain BobTheWonderPoodle.com, and linking to that site.

Fast growth might be the problem.

Another possible explanation, according to Blank: Facebook keeps a close eye on groups that experience overnight, logarithmic growth.  In the wake of the Haiti disaster, hundreds of groups sprang up claiming that they'd donate $1 for each new member, or offering some similar crowd-gathering incentive.  The groups enjoyed astronomical growth, but -- again, to the firm's credit -- they were quickly removed out of concern that spammers might take advantage of members, and that many of the claims were fraudulent.

"There seems to be a crackdown on anything that shows rapid growth," said Blank, a Web developer by trade. "But if they are trying to crack down on that, there is no clear policy."

Also unclear – and a question that might never be answered– just how popular could a photo of a dog wearing tin hat be?

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.