Anonymize. Repressive regimes of the world love Facebook because if an activist wants to use Facebook they have a choice: reveal their identity to their oppressors or be deleted by Facebook (which is exactly what happened to the Egyptian Facebook page “We are all Khaled Said” when its administrators used a false identity).

Secure. Facebook should install HTTPS (as opposed to HTTP) – a simple, cheap, and highly effective security solution – as a default feature across the entire platform, not just as an opt-in for users buried deep in your account settings.

Protect. Facebook needs to recognize that human rights defenders who use their platform require special care. To protect their content, secure their accounts, and appeal wrong decisions, a “concierge service” needs to be set up that can respond quickly to the genuine risk these users face.

Resist. Every day, hundreds of millions of people entrust their private information to Facebook, but its policies detailing how private data will be shared are weak. Facebook should resist overboard requests from governments on either side of the firewall to reveal user information, disclose no more information about their users than is legally required, and inform the user so they can legally respond.

Now in principle, I support these calls to action, and want these protections for people who are speaking out for democracy or a better way of life in their home countries, and for ordinary people who just want their personal information protected -  as a FB user, I’m one of them. But I also know that there are just some things you shouldn’t post online since they might come back at you some day – nothing is really secure.

What unsettled me over this message, enough that it was still with me this morning, was a simple question – is all of this Facebook’s job? Is Facebook in the ‘business of human rights and security?’ Should they be required to set up a ‘concierge service’?  While anonymity is important for democracy seekers fearful of repressive regimes, what about child predators? Some of these suggestions look fairly straightforward, others do not. I’m a bit conflicted here – would welcome others’ thoughts.

She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these.  With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.

Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.

Younger generations have traditionally been the engines of revolution. This generation has radical new tools available to them in the form of internet-based communications that enable enormous change in a short amount of time. Dictators and secretive regimes around the world now have much to fear.  The thing they have forever tried most to control, information, is out there for anyone with a cell phone to engage in – and that is most of the modern world.

Mubarek tried unsuccessfully to cut off internet access – technically, it can be done, but culturally it can’t. The failed effort lasted a day before everyone was back online. Remarkable in itself that pressure to do this from inside Tahrir Square and around the globe actually paid off. Duplicity was called out for what it was, and it caved. Woo hoo!

This unprecedented communication movement throws more traditional comms theory in a tailspin. No one was in charge.  No one had a strong agenda they were promoting except ‘Mubarek has to go, and it must be done peacefully’.  There was no calculated influence campaign, no press releases, no strategy, no talking heads on TV. The power of this movement was emotion – hope, courage, determination – and the ability to communicate those needs and feelings in real time to a huge mass of people. Granted emotion of this depth is not easily aroused, but when it is genuine, it is unstoppable.

Many questions remain, as Egyptians, other Middle Eastern nations and the rest of the world wait to see how a new order unfolds. Already this morning, one day after Mubarek left, I saw a headline about anti-government protests in Yemen, although those were evoking an aggressive government response. Do Yemenis use Facebook?  What about China?  How and where will this form of instant, emotional and sustained communication be used for other issues - from politics to the workplace?  The potential is fascinating and unsettling.  Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the revolution.

There is a legitimate argument that fat files take more bandwidth and may need routing management to maintain performance for all. Video has been the increasing killer app for several years now, so this situation is not new or unexpected. But beyond that, there is a Carrier desire to charge extra for ‘special services’ – having worked in the IT Industry for many years, I read this as another opportunity for increased unbundling – a favorite technique for increasing revenue. Just as your cable TV has been creeping up for years, internet unbundling and ‘special services’ would have the same effect, and would in my opinion prohibit development and propagation of as-yet-unknown ideas and applications that come out of the digital community because things may get financially out of reach for users. 

To be fair, I bitch like hell if my connection is slow, and many users [especially Millenials] excesively access fat files. Maybe some grading of the fee structure according to usage is not out of the question. Anyone on the internet is already paying access fees, which are not cheap – even my basic broadband hardwire is $30/month, which is more than land line phone service. Would you be willing to pay more for unfettered YouTube access? 

So, the government could redefine and regulate broadband in the same model as the telephone, but there was big corporate and Republican pushback when this idea came up. The FCC’s December action tried to establish a compromise, but not surprisingly, one month later it’s already in court. I have a feeling this one could go all the way up the legal ladder, and Justice Roberts will surely put this one on the docket. Should be an interesting few years. Ma Bell Redux.

Still, the idea of it, from a communications and information access perspective shows an interesting dilemma in the modern world.  The material is ‘classified’ and its release has not been authorized.  Looking at it online could be construed by potential employers [who need employees that can be cleared] as illegally accessing classified material. Sharing it with others would be worse, and a comment on your character as someone probably not worthy of a clearance.  We certainly can’t cite it in papers or class projects.  But, realistically, this information is now in the public domain, and anyone can see it.  This creates a rather unprecedented conundrum for job-seeking students [and even some faculty for that matter] in the digital age.  Where is the line on protected content now drawn?  Will some of us really maintain that self control and integrity to follow the rules, even when the insights that could come from consuming the material could influence work opinions, judgement, understanding and maturity in ways we could not have without perhaps years of experience?  This issue is fascinating, complex and way far from being resolved.

The key speaker was Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator – the first person ever put in this newly created position.  Very glad to see the gov’t putting some dedicated resource in this area. Surprisingly, she noted that there is a lot of agreement and support from both sides of the political aisle on this issue – I guess she has one of the better jobs in the Administration from that perspective.

Her remarks briefly introduced the 2010 Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement, a new initiative focusing on 6 broad categories for action to better protect American IP: leading by example, increasing transparency in enforcement policy, ensuring efficiency and coordination of enforcement activities among various levels of enforcement entities, enforcing US patent rights overseas, securing the US supply chain to stem the flow of  ‘infringing’ products,  and building a data-driven gov’t in the US.  So far, 33 specific action items have been identified- Ms. Espinel expects the list to be fluid given the dyamics of IP-related businesses. 

Other panelists included leaders from industry association groups – all giving testimony to the serious problem piracy poses to our economy.  All speakers pointed readily at China as the biggest offender. While class readings for the Science and Technology Policy cornerstone class noted that China is making progress in this area, you wouldn’t have known it from the speakers present today, all of whom had highly animated commentary about ‘stealing’ American innovation, and the particular harm this has on US small-medium businesses.  Morgan Reed of ACT noted that small software companies are reaching a point of not even considering China in their market space, knowing that any IP that is sent there will be widely distributed in short order for no compensation.  They can’t begin to compete in this kind of environment, so will have to forego the market opportunity all together.  This hurts business.

Emery Simon of the Association for Competitive Technology surprised me greatly when he claimed that the lion’s share of $50B annual losses to software piracy come from corporation abuse of licensing – both outside and within the US.  Companies are buying 10 and using 100.  This costs us jobs right here at home.  Not to mention it’s just kind of unethical and well, wrong… As one who has made part of her living through writing, I have a lot of respect for other people’s IP. 

Getting a handle on this huge problem, even cutting down by 15-20%, is going to be a challenge, but the pay-offs will be great if it can be done.  Kudos for the Obama Administration for bumping this high enough up the priority list to get an organized effort around it.

“Studies have shown that worker morale fell during the recession. Productivity rose as companies squeezed more work out of their employees. That points to a reason quits may keep rising: Overworked employees could jump at the chance to switch jobs as new opportunities arise.  ‘There is going to be a mass exodus of the top performers as the economy starts to turn around,’ predicts Razor Suleman, a consultant who helps companies retain their best workers.”

As a consultant, I myself have seen business go from a decline in 2009 to exceedingly busy since January 2010.  I count myself blessed for this bounty, but I’m not alone – every consultant I know is now working hard, and online postings for help have increased dramatically.  Even though the national unemployment number is still up, it’s waning – the recession is over.

Since many companies cut to the bone during the downturn, there isn’t much fat left to be trimmed.  That means incumbent workers and their inside knowledge and experience are even more valuable.  This is the time to reinforce commitment and a shared, inclusive and beneficial vision, to proactively communicate from the top levels of the business down through all levels of the organization, to acknowledge worker sacrifice for the past 2 years with a sincere thank you and maybe a little cash spent.

It’s my belief that in the long run, most people will be willing to recommit if they feel they’re being treated fairly, being respected and getting the reward – monetary or intangible – that needs to come from what we do 40, 50 or 60 hours a week.  Real leadership, a bit of backing off on unsustainable expectations, and an environment of open communication will start rebuilding trust now, limiting flight risk that will increase along with the economic recovery.

Newsweek article on reinventing yourself in the 2010 workplace: http://www.newsweek.com/id/228562

Chris Boudreaux of Accenture [and the founder of www.socialmediagovernance.com] discussed the newness of social media tools to marketers, who are valiantly seeking their footing with this innovative media that already reaches far and is growing fast and unpredictably. Likening the delight of bringing social media tools into the marketing toolkit to getting a new puppy [it's so great and wonderful until your shoes get chewed and the rug gets soiled] Chris provided a framework for responsibly applying these tools in the corporate setting using ‘empowerment with accountability.’   Companies should not over-control or strictly impose old rules that stifle the inherently creative and human characteristic of social media.  Governance policies need to go beyond reactive, risk containment issues like ethics and conduct to proactive uses that drive upside and strengthen a company’s brand while still ensuring consistency among all who speak to the outside world through these tools.

Krim then took up the brand issue, pointing out how yesterday’s branding practices no longer apply in today’s social media world. Whereas most large companies [and even some smaller ones] lean far toward the control side of branding policies, these have traditionally tended to let nothing ‘human’ in.  Yet brand truly consists of attributes far beyond brand elements (logo, look and feel) to very human experiences – culture, ideas, innovations, motivations, services, etc.  To make a brand strong in the social media environment, companies must get in the conversation in the first place, show some personality and humanity, and build trust through genuine interaction.

Clearly social media as a marketing tool is in its infancy. We really appreciate the insights from these two leading edge practitioners who are on the front lines of this new paradigm.

The net neutrality rules proposed by the FCC in October seem to me a great way to retain the fairness and limitless potential of this playing field.  Why change what works for everyone to benefit a narrow few?  If you agree, please consider signing the petition at savetheinternet.com.  I just can’t imagine any other way for the internet to be. Genies don’t go back into bottles.

The bottom line – today’s worker are sophisticated.  They’re paying attention at work. They want to do a good job and they know if they’re being snowed by Management.  They’re also fair.  64% of my respondents said their workplace leaders are communicating with them on at least a semi-regular basis, and that there is some opportunity for an interactive discussion.  A majority appreciate that their leaders are making some effort to communicate, but only a very small percentage believes that their leadership is being completely honest with them.  71% said their workplace is going through a major change now or has in the last nine months -71%!!  Nothing is stable and an environment of continual change breeds stress — and stress equates to productivity loss!

61% reported that open communication from leadership definitely increases their ability to focus and be productive.  Another 21% said that partial or one-way communication could cause confusion about what they really should be doing.  Only 18% said managment communication didn’t matter in getting their job done.   Seems pretty obvious that having open, two-way dialog with integrity can give a big productivity boost – and that directly impacts the bottom line.  Why aren’t all leaders doing this?  An attitude of ‘do more with less’, ‘be glad you have a job at all’, or ‘just trust me to tell you what’s best’ just doesn’t cut it in the modern workplace.  You want smart employees?  Best to treat them that way.

To request a copy of the findings report [it's short], email me at kstershic@dialogrc.com

Stershic will serve a one year term as leader of the Silicon Valley chapter, which has over 230 members.  Working with a 10-person Board of senior communication experts, her goals include maintaining strong organizational momentum, demonstrating best practices in using evolving digital communication channels, and reinforcing the importance of open communication as a vital component of business success in today’s challenging economic environment.

IABC, the International Association of Business Communicators, is the leading professional resource for effective communication practice. With members in over 80 countries, IABC provides products, services, activities and networking opportunities to help people and organizations achieve excellence in all forms of business communication.  The Silicon Valley Chapter provides a professional network and learning community for hundreds of area communicators committed to delivering excellence in strategic, integrated communications. The chapter provides a range of member services including monthly networking and speaker events, a local jobs board, local vendor listings, newsletters and social networking groups.  More information is available at www.sv.iabc.com.