Debt, Credit Card & Consolidation Current News Digest

Technology was supposed to make our lives simpler and save us time. In many ways, it's done just the opposite. Last month, we took a look at how often our gadgets let us down, and how screen-based devices are literally rewiring our brains and robbing people of focus and social skills.  But we left one of the more obvious techo-fear topics — information overload — for another day. 

A new study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project suggests consumers are coping with the avalanche of information they receive in unexpected and often successful ways.  So today we’ll discuss of both that silver lining and the grey cloud inside of it.

Having all the world's information, and very nearly all the world's people, just a click away seems like a fantastic development for humankind. But how much is too much?

The Economist magazine recently reported that the total amount of information in the world is growing 60 percent annually, and that U.S. households digest 34 gigabytes of data per person per day.

That's not information overload; it's practically electrocution.  But the Pew study sheds some light on how U.S. consumers are dealing with the surge — they're getting a little help from their friends.

In a new report called "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer," Pew says that one third of consumers have commented on news stories or shared them through social networking sites, half "rely on people around them to tell them when there is news they need to know," and 8 out of 10 get or share links in e-mail.

"Consumers are using social networks to filter, assess and react to the news," the report concluded. 

In other words, one sure-fire way to build Web traffic is to get a social network user to yell at all their friends, "Hey. Look at that!"

"Yes, there is a lot of that going on," said Lee Rainie, who runs Pew's Internet research. "People are getting their news through recommendations in social spaces."

New participation, new loyalty

Those are just a few of the findings in the Pew study, which suggested that consumers are driving news creation and even story selection like never before.  In a moment, we're going to ask you about the ways you consume news and deal with information overload.  But first, here are more tidbits from the study.

Click to join the fight against Red Tape 

 

While the changing online news user seems loyal to their friends and their recommendations, loyalty to specific online news brands is evolving differently. Only 35 percent say they have a favorite place to visit for news — contrast that with consumers' relatively fierce loyalty toward Coke or Pepsi, Burger King or McDonald’s. 

"There is some level of loyalty but it's striking that people didn't say, 'Oh yeah, all the time, I am always checking out this Web site," said Rainie "We didn’t expect that. We thought people would have a favorite, even if they were just 'grazing' on news. We were betting the percentages would be reversed."

On the other hand, Web users are loyal to a small family of Web sites they trust.  The majority of online news consumers (57 percent) visit only two to five Web sites to stay updated.  Only one in 10 users said they regularly visit more than five news sites.

Rainie cautions people on comparing the loyalty numbers to other media or other consumer products. Many people prefer one news anchor to another, or prefer Coke to Pepsi. But clicking on a Web site or blog represents a different kind of choice.  Picking Coke necessarily means picking against Pepsi, and watching one network means not watching another. But on the Web, people are free to split time among multiple sources. 

"You are not being disloyal if you click on a link from someone to another Web site," he said. There’s no rejection involved. Online, people simply follow a click trail. "On the Web, it's more like an impulse buy."

With consumers trusting a circle of friends to keep them updated, professional journalists are becoming just another member of this intimate circle that serves as filter, Rainie said.

“A notable number of Internet users are beginning to treat news organizations, particular journalists, and other news mavens as nodes in their social networks,” the report found. Fully 57 percent of U.S. adults use a social networking site, and 97 percent call themselves online news consumers.

New platforms

Pew's research makes obvious that consumers are faced an ever-growing list of choices. Fully 26 percent of U.S. adults, 33 percent of cell phone owners and 88 percent of mobile users are what Pew calls “on the go” users, meaning they use the Web to access news on their phones, the study found.

Meanwhile, "participation" in news is nearly as popular.  Commenting on news stories — as readers do on the Red Tape Chronicles or Newsvine — has become almost a mainstream activity, with one in four respondents saying they'd done so. “On-the-go” news users are even more dedicated, with half saying they had engaged in personal commentary.

On the other hand, despite all the talk about Twitter (which just passed its the 10 billion Tweet milestone), only 3 percent of users said they'd Tweeted about news.  Twitter updates – either from professional journalists or friends – were the least commonly used news source among the general population, the study found.  But Twitter users are an intense and devoted bunch. Nearly 100 percent are engaged in sharing news online and in other forms of participation.

Tools vs. overload

This level of active participation is not what you'd expect from a group of consumers cowering under the mountain of data headed their way every morning. This group is not disengaging because they can’t keep up. In fact, the Pew study shows that people who participate in news stories are much more likely to follow that story over time, and to care about the outcome.  It's a mixed bag, Rainie said.

"Information overload is part of the story, but not the whole part," Rainie said.  "Some people are participating because they have so much choice in news and in life. Some people are probably disengaging.  But some people are more engaged. …  Some people do it because they can.  The tools (for participating) are very good now."

Meanwhile, almost half of Web users (44 percent) say they have signed up for nifty technology that lets “the news find them,” Pew said.  They use an alert service, automated Web site updates, e-mail, or social networks to get headlines and stories delivered right to their screens. Slightly more than one quarter of Web users say they receive such passive news delivery at least once a day.

News snackers vs. deep divers

Clearly, some news consumers have changed their habits. Instead of spending 60 minutes reading a newspaper or 30 minutes watching a newscast, they might spend 5 minutes on a Web site or even just 60 seconds scanning headlines posted by friends on Facebook . This group is sometimes referred to as "news snackers." Rainie calls it "drive-by" headline scanning.  There's concern that this group is learning less about their world and will be less able to participate in the political process. But ever here, Rainie cautions against generalizations.

"We didn't ask equivalent questions in 1976, like ‘How many of you are done with the newspaper in 3 minutes,’” he said. “Obviously, some people just scanned newspaper headlines, too. Meanwhile, people who care about a subject now have a lot more opportunity to get documents, video clips, and commentary. They have the ability to dive deeply into stories, sometimes for hours."

It's far too optimistic to suggest news consumers are winning the war on information overload, but Rainie thinks the new tools have at least given them a fighting chance.

"People are learning how to arrange the information universe around them, and learning how to be on alert in an environment that has this capacity," he said.  "They are learning to open themselves up to more input from friends, and they can customize their sources to focus on subjects that matter to them.  The technology is quite robust for doing these things."

But not everyone is being taken along for the ride.  Lurking behind this debate about the new news consumers is a potential widening of the digital divide. Will consumers who don't Tweet, use Facebook, leave comments or post cell phone video fall ever further behind? While about one-third of the Internet audience is now fiercely engaged in posting news stories, arguing online or linking to video clips within sophisticated social media sites like Facebook, a host of other Americans don't have high-bandwidth access or the know-how to get involved.

"This is a long-standing concern of political scientists in general," Rainie said. "Even before the Internet there was a lot of evidence and research that people who were not deeply engaged with communication didn't take advantage of media sources, and, how would their voices be heard? … Online news participants are still upper class and well educated.”

This might leave consumers with a stark choice: participate or perish.

"People have to either be engaged, or be left out," he said.  "Many people lack the technology and the tools to take full advantage of this new environment that gives them the capacity to be more involved.  We have to make sure that there is fundamental access to the new tools for participation.” 

What about you? Do you feel more engaged or more overwhelmed? Are you using new tools like Twitter and Facebook as much as Pew thinks you are?  Do you like participating in debates on blogs like the Red Tape Chronicles? Have you personalized news sources? Are there other news and information tools you are craving, or that you imagine would be helpful?  What subjects would you like to hear more about?  Leave your comment here, or if you prefer, discuss on my Facebook fan page, follow me on Twitter, or Tweet about this story to your friends.

You probably have a workout buddy. You might have a dieting buddy.  Maybe you are part of a moms' support group or a car pool. Perhaps you decided to run a half-marathon this year, but only after one of your friends promised to train with you. 

So why don't you have a stop getting ripped off buddy?

We all know the power of social commitments and positive peer pressure.  It's oh so much easier to wake up at 6 a.m. and go running when you know a friend is waiting for you at the corner — and you'll face her mocking wrath if you don't show.

We also know that everyone hates overpaying for credit cards, pay TV or cell phone service — yet we're all busy and hate the hassle of fighting back. We're distracted, we dread all the time spent listening to hold music, we fear rejection.  We know we should, but we just don't get around to it.

Now's your chance to take a stand.

We're going to harness the power of public commitment to motivate one other to take on unfair fees and charges.  Today, we're starting a new msnbc.com feature — the Red Tape Fight Pledge.  Click now to join a Facebook group devoted to helping you take on companies and monthly bills that just aren't right.  Pledge to spend one hour in the next 30 days fighting against a company that’s trying to take you to the cleaners, then come back and tell everyone how you did.  Your stories will be part of upcoming msnbc.com Red Tape Chronicles reports.

But more important, you'll have made a public commitment to make that phone call or write that letter you've been putting off. To give up that one lunch hour to make sure your cable company isn't overcharging you. And you'll swap success stories and tips along the way.  Found a phone number that worked? Great. Have a Web site that helped you find the right customer service department?  Tell everyone. And if you hit a brick wall, share that too. You might find an answer from a compatriot here.

To kick start the effort, here's a few ideas

*This month I will call my pay TV company and tell them I want the same discounted deal they give new customers. Why should I be punished for being loyal?

*I'll research a new credit card.  My bank has hiked my rate and lowered my limit, so it's time to shop around for new plastic. I tried 6 months ago, but I think it's time to try again. Things may have changed.

*I hate my bank, so I will research small community banks and credit unions.  I hear it takes a little effort to switch, but one solid lunch hour might be enough.

*I will carefully examine my 401(k) holdings. I've heard that some mutual funds have high expense ratios, and that those fees could eat up one-third of my retirement fund before I reach 65.  I will switch to low-cost index funds instead.

There are plenty of others.  So jump over to the Facebook group now and leave your pledge. And remember to come back within a month and tell us what happened.  We'll offer helpful reminders right in this space.

Now, fight for your money!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE 'RED TAPE FIGHT PLEDGE' on Facebook. 

(In this case, comments won't be accepted on today's blog. Place your comments on the Facebook group, please.)

If Google wanted to create a quick buzz around its new social networking service, it's certainly accomplished that. Last week, when the Web giant automatically signed up millions of Gmail users for its new Buzz social network, much of the Internet was sent into a privacy tizzy.

Google announced serious modifications to the service, later in the week, but that wasn’t enough for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).  On Tuesday, it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asking the regulator order more changes. EPIC also accused Google of violating federal consumer protection law and suggested the firm may have broken wiretap laws, too.

While the details of the Buzz privacy dispute can seem esoteric, the main thrust of EPIC's complaint is simple: Google should never had pushed all 37 million U.S. Gmail users into a social networking service without asking, said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.

"E-mail is one area on the Internet where we have a well-understood expectation of privacy," Rotenberg said.  "E-mail is for private messages. You sign up for social networking to communicate publicly with people, Google tried to turn e-mail into social networking, and that's where they ran into trouble."

The complaint lays out a series of alleged Google missteps that EPIC says constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices that violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. For starters, it says, all users who checked their Gmail account last week were suddenly signed up for Buzz.  While Google offered users a chance to "check out" the service, it didn't give them the option to avoid it.

"Regardless of whether a user clicked the button labeled 'Sweet! Check out Buzz' or “Nah, go to my inbox,’ Google Buzz was activated," the complaint says.

Gmail account holders who then began using Buzz found their first public posting was essentially a list of their most frequent e-mail contacts.  Buzz decided for itself who users e-mailed most often, then put those users on a list as "followers" and made that list public. Quickly, nightmare hypothetical scenarios were published — workers who had recently e-mailed about job interviews had their job hunt exposed, for example.   Cheating lovers or spouses were outed.

"Gmail contact lists routinely include deeply personal information, including the names and email addresses of estranged spouses, current lovers, attorneys and doctors," the EPIC complaint said. "Users were not explicitly warned that their lists would be automatically visible to the public. … Anyone looking at a newly activated Buzz user’s following list would know that the list indicated which people that user communicated with most often."

In addition to causing potential embarrassment — or worse – Google may have broken the law by disclosing e-mail contacts, EPIC said.

"Improper disclosure of even a limited amount of subscriber information by an e-mail service provider can be a violation of both state and federal law," it said. "An attempt by an e-mail service provider to attempt to convert the personal information of all of its customers into a separate service raises far-reaching concerns."

Google has already gone through two rounds of revisions with its service, and Buzz now tells new users that frequent e-mail partners will be “followers” unless the user prevents that.  New users now see a list of potential followers — checked by default — when they sign up for the service.

 

Google's revised start-up doesn't go far enough, EPIC says

But on Tuesday, Rotenberg said that Google still hadn't gone far enough to address privacy concerns.  Buzz still ropes in Gmail users and their e-mail contacts by default, which can lead to unintended disclosure of personal information, he says.

Rotenberg said Buzz users should have to actively opt in before Buzz is activated, rather than opt out.

"It's always about the defaults," he said.

EPIC has called on the FTC to force Google to:

*make Buzz a fully opt-in service.
* force Google to cease using Gmail users’ private address book contacts to compile social networking lists.
*give Buzz users more control over their information.

For a company that has already dealt with plenty of privacy related issues, Google's misreading of public reaction to Buzz is a surprise, said Larry Ponemon, a privacy researcher who runs The Ponemon Institute.

"It is astonishing to me that a decision was made to release a product that the average person would see as a potential privacy snafu," he said. "Things like this seem to happen because people making decisions just aren't thinking about privacy. … Sometimes companies don't when they are about to release something they think is really cool."

Ponemon did say that he was impressed with Google's quick response to the controversy, taking only a few days to made changes to the service.

"They did take it seriously, you could tell they had all hands on deck," he said.

Rotenberg said Google was more worried about stiff competition in the social media world than privacy.

“Google tried to take advantage of its market position" by dragging all Gmail users into Buzz overnight, he said, thereby giving the service a running start in the uphill battle to catch Facebook and Twitter in the social networking space.

That's why he wants the FTC to be more proactively involved in privacy policy.

"The FTC has had a hands-off policy, leading to some bad business practices," he said.

Google said in an e-mail statement to msnbc.com that it was working hard to make adjustments to its service based on user feedback, and will keep "user transparency and control top of mind.

“We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns," the statement continued. "Our door is always open to organizations with suggestions about our products and services.”

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan or follow me at http://twitter.com/RedTapeChron

There’s nothing worse than having bad breath and not knowing about it!

There are certain foods that are guaranteed to cause bad breath. Most people are quite aware that eating foods such as curry, garlic, onions or coffee before a meeting or function might be the kiss of death when it comes to social etiquette.

You can try chewing gum, but you’ll have to chew for a long time because until that bad-breath-causing-food clears from your system (which can take up to 24 hours), you’ll be stuck with that bad breath. That’s unless you know which foods you can eat to mask the problem.

When it comes to finding a relief to bad breath, these 8 foods will help:

1. Parsley
   This might seem like a decoration more than anything else, but if you are eating a dish that is loaded with garlic and see that it’s been decorated with parsley, you might want to chew on it at the end of your meal to cleanse your palate. If you have basil leaves those will also help and chewing on strings of rosemary will also help.




2. Spices that pack a crunch
   A few exotic spices have been known to help alleviate bad breath. You might want to consider carrying a small packet filled with cardamom, coriander (aka cilantro) and fennel seeds. These spices will you get rid of your bad breath quickly and they will leave your month feeling fresh.
3. Berries
   Berries are not only amazing antioxidants that will help you age better, but they will also help freshen your breath!
4. Oranges
   Oranges are not only ideal for your morning breakfast or as a snack, they are amazing at refreshing your breath because the vitamin C helps deter bad breath. So next time you have a meal chock full of garlic, try to eat an orange a few hours after you’ve digested!
5. Lemons
   Lemons are great at neutralizing garlic odor on your hands and they also do wonders at killing your bad breath as well. If you are going to drink sparkling water, why not add a slice of lemon to help deal with your bad breath.
6. Apples
   Think of apples as a natural toothbrush for your mouth. You see when you chew an apple it produces quite a bit of saliva production and the combination with the high fiber content of apples will help cleanse your mouth.




7. Mint
   This list would not be complete without adding mint! Nothing freshens your mouth like mint and that’s one reason why mint-flavored gum is so popular!
8. Cinnamon sticks
   Chewing on cinnamon sticks will release essential oils that will help kill the bacteria that cause bad breath very quickly!

If you have a buddy that occasionally makes you eyes water while he’s talking to you, share this on Facebook and help the guy out!

 
Progress seemed inevitable when Disney's Carousel of Progress ride opened in 1964. Not anymore. Image courtesy, Disneyworld.disney.go.com

Lately, Internet users have been poking fun at each other at record rates, using sites with names like EPIC FAIL to chronicle technological foibles and missteps. Perhaps they are laughing to stop from crying.

Technology letdowns such as dying cell phone batteries or lost computer files can to lead to everything from pesky annoyances to computer rage, clinical depression, or worse. A growing body of research suggests that the invasion of the digital age is literally rewiring our brains, eroding skills once considered essential for a happy adult life. Gadgets were supposed to make our lives easier and save us time. Instead, we are more stressed and have less time than ever. What is the cause of this epic failure?

The modern digital age was born, most agree, in 1964, with the invention of the transistor. That same year, millions of Americans were carried into the modern era by Walt Disney's "Carousel of Progress" ride, invented for the 1964 World's Fair.  The ride offered a quick look at five eras in American history — beginning with a housewife complaining about spending five hours doing laundry. In the last scene, "The glories of today" are revealed, with clean modern living and "a kitchen that all but runs itself." The happy result: seemingly boundless leisure time.  Visitors left the ride humming "Great Big, Beautiful Tomorrow."

We're still waiting.

"Technology promised us extra time. Well, that didn't come true. We are shorter of time now, busier, then we've ever been as a society," said psychologist Michelle Weil, author of the book “Technostress.”

Technology has filled our world with modern miracles — instant global communication, frictionless commerce, information available to all for free and, most important, millions of lives saved and improved by medical science. But all this progress has not come without a price. It would be ignorant to argue that technology hasn't made the world better. But often we are blind to the fact that technology creates almost as many problems as it solves.

"We weren't prepared for that,” Weil said. “We were prepared for a smooth ride literally. We were not prepared for more issues in our lives. We have enough issues."

Working in an office with a poor cell-phone signal. A laptop battery that won't hold a charge any longer.  A car charger that short-circuits when the oversized coffee cup falls out of the cup-holder and spills.  These daily headaches — let's call them technoflubs — have become a way of life. Stack them together in one bad day and you have something Weil called technology's version of a "bad hair day." String a few of those bad days together and you get something much worse.

"When gadgets let us down, we feel frustrated, stumped, upset, scared, we feel stupid, like we did something to mess it up, and we feel helpless,” she said. “Those are all the same feelings you have when you are depressed. The issue is literally a dependency issue, and it works like any other kind of dependency on alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex. We have come to expect technology to do certain things for us, and when it fails — which it does often — and we have no clear answer, we become depressed."

And sometimes, says Professor Kent Norman of the University of Maryland, we rage.  Five years ago, Norman introduced the world to the term "computer rage," following the viral success of a series of YouTube videos showing frustrated users smashing their suddenly impotent PCs into bits.

Failure by the numbers
There isn't great data available on the number of technoflubs that U.S. consumers encounter every day, but the Pew Internet and American Life Project took a stab at an estimate two years ago. Here are the sobering results.

*Nearly half (48 percent) of adults who use the Internet or have a cell phone say they usually need someone else to set up a new device up for them or show them how to use it.

*44 percent with home Internet access say their connection failed to work properly for them at some time in the previous 12 months.

*39 percent of those with desktop or laptop computers have had their machines not work properly at some time in the previous 12 months.

*29 percent of cell phone users say their device failed to work properly at some time in the previous year.

*26 percent of those with Blackberries or other personal digital assistants say they have encountered a problem with their device at some time in the previous 12 months.

Can't be fixed
What can consumers do when their gadget breaks?  Generally nothing.  Unlike old-fashioned mechanical devices, few electronic devices have user serviceable parts, making consumers even more helpless and vulnerable to failures. 

"Think about a car. Your grandparents could fix basic problems that a Model T had. In fact, a prerequisite of owning a car was that you could fix it,” said Lee Rainie, a Pew project spokesman. “Now, you just have to take a (broken gadget) into the store and ask for help.”

And break, they will. You may love your simple phone, and that basic PC might be good enough for your mom to type letters and e-mail, but the idea of owning an appliance until it dies a natural life is antiquated.  Given the perpetual upgrade cycles, software patches, network requirements and so on, gadgets are not built to last.

"If you have a phone you like and it breaks, you can't get that phone again; it's gone," Weil said. "You only have the choices they give you."

Even on days when our computers and gadgets don't fail us, the pressure is always there, Weil warns. Cell phone users spend many evenings glancing nervously at their battery strength, hoping the gadget will work long enough to accept that critical phone call on the commute home.

 "We think about looking at our batteries more than we think about eating," Weil said. "You constantly have to bring the charger so you can plug it in in the car. You have to make sure you plug it in at night or you are going to have difficulty. It's another thing you have to think about all the time."

There are varying degrees of failure, of course. When a car breaks down in your driveway, it's far less serious than a breakdown in the middle of the Arizona desert.  But if technostress seems to be growing, Rainie said, it's because we are taking far more trips through the digital desert these days.

"The problems that people have grow in urgency the more they rely on their technology,” he said. “Our expectations for technology are growing. The frustration is in direct proportion to dependence on the instrument. Once you become used to perpetual contact with everybody, all of the sudden the loss of contact becomes a much more meaningful thing."

Constant conversation
Richard Ling, a technology professor at the University of Copenhagen, has been studying the concept of constant contact for a decade.  No longer do people call each other at home or at work, hoping to find them. Smart phone mean that calls, texts, and e-mails always find their targets. That means friends and family are never really separated.

"This is a constant conversation we are in, an ongoing dialog," Ling said. "I know what's going on with people I care about at a different level now. I know what's in the refrigerator at my friend's house."

Some consequences of this are obvious — the drunken text or the raging e-mail that we regret moments after sending.  In the past, time and distance might have served the function of "taking a deep breath." No more. Instant communication means having to say you’re sorry.

Other downsides might not be so apparent.  Being in constant connection with friends, family or employers can be both stressful and demanding.

But in a more subtle way, constant contact seems to be cheating people of the ability to plan, and to commit to plans, Rainie said. Witness a typical negotiation among teens or 20-somethings about Friday night fun.  The discussion begins with frantic texting during seventh period, or at 3:30 p.m.  Rendezvous places are picked and discarded, and meeting times considered mere approximations. Texting continues as the night begins. "Running late," "I'll meet you inside," and then, "It's lame here, let's go the other bar instead."   The mental satisfaction of having a plan come together never arrives.

'Continuous partial attention'
Some experts think these subtle changes are causing great harm to our neurological well-being.  Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan made a series of dramatic claims about the way digital devices are rewiring young brains in their 2008 book “iBrain, Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.”  Most of their assertions aren't pretty. Given that adults commonly consume two, three or even more gadgets at once now — all while carrying on conversations with people – they are beginning to lose their ability to focus and concentrate, they say. They describe a phenomenon called "continuous partial attention," a state of divided attention which leaves people unable to perform tasks that require concentration. Worse, it leaves its victims less and less able to connect with and empathize with each other, they said. 

"When our minds partially attend, and do so continuously, we scan for an opportunity for any type of contact at every given moment," they wrote. "(People) no longer have time to reflect, contemplate, or make thoughtful decisions. Instead, they exist in a sense of constant crisis — on alert for a new contact or bit of exciting news or information at any moment."  Under that kind of stress, the brain secretes cortisol and adrenaline, creating a temporary high followed by depression, leading to something the authors call "techno-brain burnout."

In children, the effects can be worse, they said.  When face-to-face contact is replaced by excessive digital media, a child's neural circuits can atrophy and the brain may not develop normal interactive social skills. Small and Vorgan believe this is a big problem, and that a class of young heavy media users they call Digital Natives are suffering from extreme antisocial tendencies.

"Several studies in both children and adults … tie frequent technology use to conditions such as ADD, ADHD, autism, depression, anxiety and even sociopathic behavior," they said.

The Dumbest Generation
Emory University English Professor Mark Bauerlein sees other risks in this phenomenon, and laments them in his book, “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. “ He's worried that technology that was supposed to make our kids learn faster and smarter is actually robbing them of the ability to think.

"The Internet doesn't impart adult information; it crowds it out," he wrote. Students — even top college students — read rarely now, and the slang used for online chatting is eroding writing skills.

Bauerlein's work was featured in a new PBS documentary “Digital Nation,” which premiered this week. The show took on the issue of divided attention, quoting professors who struggle to keep the interest and attention of students they know are playing with Facebook during class.  While the professors complained, students asserted that they were perfectly capable of effectively multitasking.

Hardly, Bauerlein argues. Students may manage to pass tests in school, but thanks to distractions the students retain little knowledge required for culture, citizenship or good consumerism.  The reason Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment — when random adults seem unable to answer basic questions such as how many stars are on the U.S. flag — is so funny is because it's true.

Sticking up for tech
There are many valid defenses for technology.  It's just a tool, of course — the Internet doesn't kill brains, people kill brains.  Obviously, a tool that allows people to find virtually any fact ever known within a few seconds can help make people a lot smarter. 

Even Weil, the “Technostress” author, is quick to say that technology is not the problem: "The problem is the way people use technology, and the expectations they have for it," she said.

People have come to depend too much on gadgets, and fail to plan for the logical possibility that they will occasionally break down.  Having simple backup plans in place – in case my phone dies, I’ll meet you at 8 – can relieve much of the dependency-related stress.

Meanwhile, too much alcohol, too much chocolate cake, too much exercise  – all these things can be bad for people, just like too much digital exposure. Most technology reporters who cover the dark side of the Web — porn, gambling, privacy, electronic crime — eventually come around to the notion that technology changes nothing.  All those bad habits existed before the Web and continue to exist in spite of the Web.  It's fair to ask, then, where the fault lies for "The Dumbest Generation" — with overexposure to digital media, or with adults who don't force the kids to turn off the laptops and listen once in a while.

Blaming youth would be a mistake, too, as brain studies show the deleterious effect of too much digital media impacts all ages.  In fact, older people are less equipped to deal with overstimulation and hyperconnectivity. 

Meanwhile, Ling offers this reminder: Global connectivity creates millions of small success stories every day. Unlike television, which can be isolating, cell phone technology can help create feelings of true intimacy. 

This week, his daughter bought her first computer and called him on her way out of the store.

"I was able to share that exact moment with her, even though she was 2,000 miles away (at school). Now that was wonderful," he said. 

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan or follow me at http://twitter.com/RedTapeChron

For years computer security experts have been preaching that users should never share the same password across their connected lives — at online banking sites, at Amazon, on their Web mail services, even on their cell phones.

Apparently, most people ignore that advice.

A new study by security firm Trusteer found that 73 percent of Web users take their online banking password and use it at other Web sites.  And about half of all consumers utilize the same password and user name at online banking sites and other sites.

"I must say I was very surprised,” said Amit Klein, chief technology officer of Trusteer. “It is surprisingly sad that such a large portion of users use their banking credentials at other sites. … It exposes those users to attacks that would otherwise be impossible. I thought that people would take banking credentials more seriously, but it turns out that in this digital age, this is not the reality."

When consumers use the same password across multiple sites, hacking becomes trivially easy. If a criminal breaks into a smaller Web site — say a site created by a local grocery store — and grabs a cache of passwords, their next step is always the major banking Web sites.  When you consider that 40 percent of U.S. consumers' checking accounts are tied up in the four largest banks, odds are good that the stolen credentials will work for in one of them.

Password overlap also creates an easy end run around sophisticated banking security technology, which is only as strong as the weakest site where the password is used. Banks might enforce strong password creation requirements, for example. But if a consumer uses a bank password it at a poorly defended small site, a hacker can break into the small site, steal the log-in information and essentially crack the bank's high-tech system.

"This is something that should be of huge concern both to banks and to users," said Klein.

Trusteer unearthed the data through use of its Rapport security software, which is designed to warn users when they are about to enter a critical banking password into a site where it doesn't belong — a phishing site, for example. The tool was used to examine the behavior of 4 million computer users during a 12-month period. During that span, the firm found that 73 percent used their online banking password on at least one non-financial Web site.

And it didn’t help much when the banks enforced strict password controls. When a bank allowed consumers to pick a user ID, 65 percent used it on other sites. When a bank assigned a customer ID, 42 percent used it at other sites and 42 percent used both the ID and the password on at least one other site.  

'They don't think it's worth the trade off'
Last year, analyst firm Gartner released a survey that reported similar results. It said two-thirds of consumers use the same one or two passwords across all Web sites they access. 

But Avivah Litan, who directed the Gartner survey, said that choice might not be as unreasonable — or as unsafe — as it seems.

"They are making a choice for convenience over security," she said. "They are using a cost-benefit equation … and they don't want to try to remember 10 different passwords for everything they do. They don't think the trade-off is worth it, honestly."

While password sharing isn't a safe practice, Litan said, complicating your life with multiple passwords isn't exactly a cure-all.

"The truth is criminals steal your passwords lots of ways, such as recording keystrokes, and if they do that, it doesn't matter whether your password is 15 characters and unique or 7 characters and the same for every site. People have figured this out," she said.

Using multiple passwords is a good idea, but Litan said it is important that consumers understand the risks that remain even if strong passwords are used.

"It is another lock on the door but a lock that is easily picked," she said. "Still, it's always better to put as many blocks in the road you can."

Large banks don't rely on simple user/password combinations to identify users anymore, she added.  Numerous technologies are used to prevent fraud through a strategy called "layered security."  Device fingerprinting of PCs is a key tool, she said. Web sites tag computer hardware by monitoring unique characteristics, such as exact processor speed or time and date settings. Sites that use device fingerprinting see fraud rates drop 15 to 20 percent, she said.

Banks also look for suspicious behavior, such as attempted transfers to unusual accounts. Another hacker giveaway: clicks through Web sites that occur at high speed, showing an automated PC — and not a person — is attempting a transaction.  Humans take, on average, about 10 seconds before they click "confirm payment."  Computers controlled by hackers racing through stolen login accounts barely wait at all.

"That's best-of-breed security," Litan said.  "If you as a bank are relying on passwords for security then you have a poor security system."

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS
It should be comforting to know that your user ID and password are not all that stands between a hacker and your money. Still, that's no reason to let your guard down. Your banking passwords should be handled with great care, and shouldn't be shared with other Web sites.

And remember, many Web firms that store your critical personal information do not use best-of-breed security on their back end — meaning you are still at risk.  A criminal who stole your Facebook credentials could easily wreak havoc with your life, so protect those accounts, too.

Klein concedes that the vast majority of computer users will never create unique user/password combinations for all their sites. As a more practical goal, he recommends maintaining three "families" of passwords — one for critical financial sites, a second for sites that store your personal information, and a third for generic log-ins.

"And you don’t want to mix those passwords," he said.

 

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan or follow me at http://twitter.com/RedTapeChron

Now that I’m done with the bulk of the work on Your Money: The Missing Manual, I can start doing many of the things I used to do. Like provide monthly summaries for Get Rich Slowly.

In some ways, January was a strange month around here. For one thing, I think this was the month with the fewest posts since I started the site; there were only three days with more than one post. Yet I don’t feel like this was a bad thing. In fact, I felt like there were some fantastic conversations in January. (What do you think? Are you okay with the one-post-a-day thing? Or would you prefer to see more?)

Here are some of the best articles from this month:

• January 4th: 10 steps to financial success in 2010
• January 6th: Invest in your most important income-produing asset (by Robert B.)
• January 7th: The best time to buy almost everything (by April)
• January 13th: What the new credit card law means to you (by Adam J.)
• January 18th: Break out of your comfort zone to achieve success (a guest post from Flexo)
• January 25th: Great lessons from great men
• January 27th: Does renting make sense?

The blog isn’t the only part of this site. If you have burning questions about personal finance, one of the best places to get answers is the Get Rich Slowly discussion forum, which just got a fresh coat of paint.

The forum is a great place to chat with your fellow readers. Have questions about emergency funds? Ask! Want to chat about cheap vacations? This is the place to do it. The forums have over 3400 registered users and over 44,500 posts.

Subscribe!
You may subscribe to Get Rich Slowly via any of the following methods:

Join over 14,000 people who receive Get Rich Slowly via e-mail by supplying your address:

 

Finally, you can follow me on Twitter or join the Get Rich Slowly blog network and/or the Get Rich Slowly page on Facebook.

This weblog is a success because of you and your support. As always, I welcome reader contributions, either as ideas for stories, or as guest entries. If you have any comments or requests to improve this site, please feel free to pass them on.

—
Related Articles at Get Rich Slowly:

• “Jumpstart Your Retirement Plan Days” Provides Free Financial Advice
• The Best of Get Rich Slowly: January 2008
• The Best of Get Rich Slowly: January 2009
• The GRS Garden Project: January 2010 Update
• Daily Links: Extreme Editing Edition

We all have days when we just don’t feel with it. Maybe we were up late the night before, maybe we slept badly, or maybe we’re simply tired for no clear reason. But when you’ve got work to do – whether in your day job, on your small business or around the house – then you can’t just go back to bed. You want to stay alert, make the most of your time, and avoid getting distracted or making silly mistakes.

Here’s how to work when you’re tired:

• Be Clear About What You Want to Accomplish
  It’s always a good idea to have a clear goal in mind, but especially when you’re feeling tired or otherwise sub-par. Sit down and think what you need to get done today. If you’re working on a big project, what exactly are you going to get done? The next chapter? That section with the statistics you need to look up? If you’re spring cleaning, don’t just do whatever catches your eye – make a plan.

  It’s very easy to start meandering into lots of unrelated tasks, if you don’t have a clear focus on what you want to accomplish. I’m sure you’ve had days where you’ve looked back and wondered where your time went – well, this is how to make sure you spend your time on something worthwhile!

• Get Ruthless About Distractions
  Again, this is always good advice – but when you’re tired, it counts double. Stay out of your email, don’t log into Facebook, and don’t keep taking breaks from the task at hand. It’s so easy to get distracted when you’re not focusing well, and it only makes it harder to concentrate.

  You know what it’s like to “just check Facebook” and spend the next hour looking at your cousin’s holidays snaps; so every time your attention wanders, direct it straight back to what you’re supposed to be working on.




• Drink Plenty of Water
  Dehydration saps your concentration – so make sure you’re sipping water regularly if you’re tired. Although caffeine can supply a temporary boost of energy, try to go easy on the coffee: you’ll only crash otherwise. (Ditto for sugary sodas.)

  I like to keep a bottle of water on my desk, within easy reach: because it’s next to me, it’s easy to remember to drink from it, and because the bottle has a screw cap, there’s no chance I’ll accidentally tip it into my computer’s keyboard!




• Keep Moving Around
  If you’re feeling sleepy, the worst thing to do is to sit down somewhere warm and comfy – you’ll almost certainly nod off! Instead, make sure you move around frequently: get up and stretch, go for a brisk walk, get your body temperature up a bit. This is an especially good idea if you get that mid-afternoon slump: walking around will shake it off.
• Take a Shower
  Getting into a shower will really wake you up when you’re feeling sluggish. If you’re struggling to even get out of bed, head straight for the shower: as soon as you’re under that running water, you’ll feel considerably more alive!

  If you work from home, a mid-afternoon shower can be a great pick-me-up when you’re tired. If you’re in an office, splashing your face with cold water can be a good refreshing alternative.




• Perform Easier Tasks
  If you’re feeling really tired but you still need to get some work done, try doing your more routine tasks: things like replying to emails, filing documents, making minor website updates, and so on. Often, your energy will naturally pick back up while you work.

How do you cope when you’re tired and you need to carry on working?

What would a world without secrets look like? Thanks to Facebook, we may find out. 

Privacy experts continue to watch in wonder as hundreds of millions of adults around the globe do things online that they would never do in person. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg created a stir recently when he offered a simple explanation: He suggested Web users now see privacy as quaint, and = Facebook  is creating a new social norm.

If you look at the data, he's right.  According to researcher Larry Ponemon of The Ponemon Institute, Facebook has hypnotized even the most private people , an elite group he calls "privacy-centric." They make up only 8 percent of the population.  These folks won't even sign up for supermarket loyalty cards, but they will post pictures and tell stories on Facebook. In fact, they are so mesmerized that, untrue to their nature, they don't even spend more time tweaking their Facebook privacy settings than regular users.

"People want to believe they are safe," Ponemon said.  There’s really no way to participate in Facebook without self-revelation – it’s baked right into the product, he points out.  Without stepping forward, posting pictures, making your identity searchable, and so on, there is no payoff on Facebook.  Because of that, Facebook even trumps personal Web pages – people put pictures and stories on Facebook that they’d never post on their own blogs, he said.  "(People) like the tool, so they convince themselves there really isn't much risk.”  

Privacy and behavioral economics expert Alessandro Acquisti, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, agrees that Facebook seems to be eroding even skeptics’ concerns about being overly exposed.  But he disagrees with Zuckerberg.   There's no new social norm, Acquisti said.  There's just a grand illusion.

Facebook has managed to convince users of something economists call an "illusion of control," Acquisti claims. Consumers who think they have power over the outcome of a transaction will naturally be overly self-confident.  The effect is most obvious in gambling, where a craps player might believe he or she can roll snake eyes just by tossing the dice a little softer, and thus bet a little more.  Human beings are easy to sucker into an "illusion of control."

The illusion at work
Here's how it works in the privacy realm: When consumers believe they can control what happens to their personal information, they don't fret about divulging it.  Facebook and other so-called Web 2.0 sites, Acquisti says, has given people a false sense of security about the availability of their personal information to others.

How? By standing by while consumers confuse two different privacy issues – divulging information, and controlling the information after it’s divulged. Facebook users indeed have great control over what information they submit to the service - they have complete controls over what they post in their profile, for example (ignoring, for now, the imposter threat).   But they have little control over how the data will be used after it's posted to the site.  In a recent yet-to-be published paper on the subject, the distinction is described as control over publication vs. control over access.

"People seem to conflate he two issues, so on a psychological level they feel better because they feel they are in control," Acquisti  said. "They underestimate the risks of how the data will actually be used."  In an experiment, students who had few qualms offering up very personal information  – such as how many sexual partners they had — for a Facebook-like service showed far more reticence when told  random researchers would be creating a profile for them.  While the end result would be the same, the idea of a human handling the information - gave the students pause.  Acquisti and fellow researchers Laura Brandimarte and George Loewenstein attribute the cause to losing control over the actual act of sharing the information.

One other possible explanation, however, would be second thoughts because of human involvement.  One college technology professor I know asks students on the first day of class to stand in front and show their Facebook page on a large screen to the rest of the class. No one ever does. Students share things online they don’t want to share in person.

Don't mean what they say?
Acquisti’s “illusion of control” theory is one reason for Facebook users’ seemingly incongruous behavior – so many say they are concerned with privacy, but fail to act as if they are concerned. This privacy paradox, however, is best understood through the simplest explanation.  Privacy transactions are notoriously difficult to judge.  The payoff from sharing a little information today is obvious; the punishment that may happen in the future is not.  Giving a supermarket your phone number today might net you a 50-cent coupon on a gallon of ice cream; that’s an obvious benefit. But what is the cost?  Reams of junk mail in the future? A health insurance premium surcharge because your grocery store reveals your bad eating habits? It’s nearly impossible to say.  And so it is with Facebook – a picture that looks like fun at 22 could be a career-killer at 32.  But people rarely make good choices about vague possibilities 10 years away.  If we did, there would be no French fry industry.

Sure, Facebook site settings offer some ways to manage who can see the information. But the settings are easy to evade or hack, and Facebook's terms of service can be changed at any time. Not long ago, Facebook friend pictures ended up in personal ads without the users' permission.  The ads were pulled, but they represent a small window into big possibilities.

But even if Facebook privacy settings were completely trustworthy, Acquisti argues that a fundamental usability problem skews the service – and all social networking tools - toward privacy-risky behavior.  Two years ago, he did research which showed that only 1 percent of Facebook users had even touched their privacy settings.   Facebook says that number has now grown to 20 percent, but still, there is an obvious flaw.  It’s far easier to share than conceal. It is an order of magnitude easier to upload photos, for example, than it is to hide them from sets of potential viewers using privacy settings.  As a result, site users will always overshare.

"Technology has vastly enhanced our ability to disseminate information, but we still lack controls on how that information will be used," Acquisti said. "It’s like we have made faster cars but have been much slower to develop new brakes."

Nothing to hide? Really? How about…
So what? So what if an ex-girlfriend will occasionally bump into a picture of you bumping and grinding your new beau?  What, really, is the harm?

Acquisti, like many psychologists, is convinced of the power of secrets – and he’s not anxious to live in a world without them.

"I do believe that inside each of us is an innate need for privacy, and there is a need to share. Right now, technology is much better at making us reveal than helping us maintain privacy," he said.

The human need for privacy is real.  While some elements of privacy are relatively recent human developments, fundamental privacy needs have always existed. Nowhere on the planet do humans regularly make love in public, notes anthropologist Helen Fisher in a recent Psychology Today article.

No normal adult shares the same level of intimacy with their spouse, their friends, their colleagues, and strangers on the bus.  It’s unhealthy – or just plain strange – to act otherwise, as anyone who’s ever uttered the words “too much information” can attest.

Meanwhile, the ability to keep secrets is a natural part of maturation.  Children tell each other secrets to establish friendships.  Adults keep secrets to gain advantage in business dealings.  Journalists only gain the trust of sources by proving they can be trusted with secrets.  Corporations often count secrets – intellectual property – as their most valuable asset.

And yet, the message implicit in avid use of Facebook is the credo of the 30 percent of adults who are privacy complacent by Ponemon’s scale – “I’ve got nothing to hide, so who cares?” 

Privacy researchers spare no time in conjuring up doomsday plots in an attempt to make people care. 

It’s easy to imagine an Internet predator using details left by kids to attack them (“Hey, I went to Riverdale Middle School, too!  I’m sorry you are having a fight with your best friend…”)

Even sharing seemingly harmless details could have some future consequence.

Telling the world that your favorite rock band is the Beatles or Coldplay might seem innocuous enough, but what happens when an employment background firm shows that Coldplay fans who also like 60s music tend to come late to work? No law prevents that.

A slightly less ominous effect of lost privacy, something called “price discrimination,” is already a reality.  Retailers have run numerous tests to hone the fine art of overcharging people who say they like something. For example: die-hard Coldplay fans are almost certainly likely to pay more for a new album than casual fans.  Most won’t notice when their music retailer of choice slips in a $1 or $2 fan premium.

Data mining for everyone
Until now, practicality has limited these kinds of scary possibilities, says Hugh Thompson, chief security strategist at People Security.  Pulling together that much disparate information left all around the Web was a chore only government agencies would attempt. But that’s not true anymore. A host of new software programs aimed at small-time data mining are slowly becoming available. They scour the Web and create dossiers on target subjects in seconds.  One, named Maltego, even provides visualizations of data points that connect people and things online.

“The critical barrier is it hasn’t been easy. It is now,” he said.  “What was a ‘data wasteland’ is now the richest environment in human history for backgrounding people. “

It’s easy to see risks here. Few would argue with the need to keep medical conditions private, for example. Even exposed salary information, which sometimes is shared widely, can cause serious problems for the victim.  Those with high incomes become an easy target for criminals.

But Acquisti conjures up even more fundamental concerns about lazy attitudes towards privacy.  Information, he notes, is power. 

 “The minute someone knows something about you, they gain a measure of control over you,” he says. This is obvious in the case of an affair: If someone learns about your secret lover, they can hold a wide measure of control over your future.  In a less obvious way, a future employer who knows that embarrassing Facebook photos from the past are hurting your job prospects can easily gain an upper hand in salary negotiations.

Worse still, the agency which might exercise that power someday might be a government, Acquisti notes.  It would not be hard to use Facebook to determine who voted for McCain or Obama in 2008, even who is Republican and who is a Democrat. Maybe that’s okay; but if databases begin to erode the notion of secrets in politics, the election system could erode with it.  Secret ballots are essential to a functioning democracy. 

And perhaps the political threat won’t come in the United States. Perhaps, someday soon, foreign governments will screen travelers based on political positions mined from social networks.

“I’m worried about control in the future,” Acquisti said.  “I feel that we are more and more getting adjusted to the idea that so much of what was done in private in the past is now done in public.  I won't be surprised when corporations or governments make more and more claims on data.  We are doing things today that 40 years ago we would have reacted by rioting, but now it is business as usual. By accepting these deals now we are paving the way for even more in the future. That’s why people who say they have nothing to hide…that argument is completely wrong.”

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan or follow me at http://twitter.com/RedTapeChron

 
 Facebook is posting warning messages on its site.

Fake fundraising efforts for the Haiti disaster are spreading like wildfire on Facebook. Dozens of fan pages have been set up, urging users to join and promising a $1 donation for each member. One group this weekend attracted 1.5 million members before it was disabled.

Meanwhile, during the weekend, Facebook officials had to beat back a rumor that the firm had promised a $1 donation for every member that changed their status to include a message about Haiti.

"This status is being tracked, the owners of facebook have confirmed they will send $1 to the rescue fund for the Haiti earthquake disaster for everytime this is cut and paste as a status," read one form of the bogus claim. "You only have to leave it for a minimum of 1 hour. Lets all do our bit to help."

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said the firm took aggressive steps to quell the rumor.  It posted a note on its blog on Saturday warning about the bogus message.

"Beware of scams and hoaxes and ensure that your donations for Haiti get to the right places," the social networking company wrote on its blog.   Contrary to a current meme, Facebook is not donating $1 for statuses, however we are sharing reputable resources via the "Other Pages" tab on the Global Disaster Relief on Facebook Page."

Later, Facebook began outright blocking the status update. When users come upon a page with the bogus update, a warning message pops up which says, "This message is fraudulent. For legitimate ways to help those in Haiti, please visit the disaster relief page."

The fake fan page fund-raisers had spread, seemingly, to all parts of the globe. Examples could be found claiming to be based in the United Kingdom, and in multiple languages. One Spanish group currently has 215,000 fans, for example.

"We'll look into the groups now," Schnitt said in response to an e-mail inquiry from msnbc.com.

It's not clear why a Facebook user would create the fake fan pages. It could be a mere prank designed to attract the maximum number of users — Facebook is full of such efforts, like the "I bet Massachusetts can get 1 million fans before any other state does" page. 

But such groups could easily be turned to more nefarious uses.  A spammer or hacker could harness  a large fan group to commit other scams.  Fan page administrators are able to contact each fan through status updates, providing a perfect platform for phishing or virus attacks.

The administrator of a group named "EVERY PERSON THAT JOINS WE WILL DONATE £1 TO HELP PEOPLE IN HAITI!" was a woman who identified herself as a college student at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The group had about 5,000 fans on Monday morning. When asked why she started the group, the woman said she hadn't, and initially denied being an admin. She said she signed up for the fan page "hoping that I can contribute or do something to help the people of Haiti." Shown the admin page for the group, she offered a different explanation.

"Just check(ed) and you're right. I don't even (know) how I became and admin. Honestly, I did not create this or monitor this," she wrote.

Computer security experts have long warned about what’s now called “promiscuous friending” – the habit of many Facebook users to simply accept all friend requests. That opens the door for computer criminals to take advantage of trust relationships formed on the site. Hackers with friend access can post links to viruses on victims’ walls, for example, or directly message the friends with Trojan horse e-mails.  Fan page administrators have slightly fewer capabilities, but it’s still a bad idea to accept any unexpected fan, group, or friend requests.

Concerned users can easily donate money directly to the Red Cross at http://RedCross.org

 

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan or follow me at http://twitter.com/RedTapeChron

« Previous entries