Facial Recognition: Creepy, or Cool?

Facial recognition software: it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie – but it’s not.

Facebook recently unveiled its latest trick in the form of automatic tagging.  At first I thought it was cool, being able to mass tag friends in pictures rather than having to select each face individually; but then it started to creep me out a bit.  All of a sudden I realized that Facebook could actually tell the difference between all of my friends’ faces, suggesting peoples’ names as pictures uploaded.  The line between cool and weird began to blur very quickly.

This line blurred even more quickly when I tried to log into my Facebook from a new computer the other day.  While on vacation I accessed my account from a “foreign” device, prompting a quiz to appear in order to verify my identity.  One of the ways to verify my identity was to name friends in selected pictures.  I suddenly got very nervous.  For the first time I was afraid that the computer would win and I would be locked out of my own Facebook account – was this some kind of cruel joke?  I think I identified six different people, some of whom I barely even know in real life.  At that point I was sufficiently freaked out.  You know the saying, “the student becomes the teacher,” I felt as though Facebook was wagging its proverbial finger at me.

When new technology like this is released into the mainstream it is invariably met with some discord, and this addition has European Union members in an uproar.  Apparently people don’t like being ushered in to the world of facial recognition without proper notice.  Society always takes a while to catch up with technology, but has Facebook gone too far this time?  Admittedly, users can log into Facebook and turn off the auto-tagging feature, but those upset by the new addition argue that the option should have been to turn on the feature instead.  Automatically implementing this new technology without properly notifying users ahead of time is one of the main concerns in the EU upheaval.  People don’t seem to be as upset by the software itself but rather by the way it was implemented.

Although there is so much debate about the invasion of privacy the idea behind the new feature is genius.  Every Facebook user has experienced the mundane task of tagging friends in group photos, and now that feeling may be obsolete.  Regardless of protests, users will get used to this change just as they have adjusted to all the others over the years.  The only question now is: what’s next?

Sources: http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2011/06/eu-probes-facebooks-facial-recognition-software.html

Companies Are Seeing Potential in Facebook Ads

Social media. Once thought of as the most efficient way to share silly pictures and cat-friendly videos, social media is now considered the most effective means by which companies interact with customers.

This radical transformation in the usefulness of social media has jolted many businesses across the world to ditch phony customer press releases, once meticulously crafted to persuade consumers to purchase products, and to engage consumers where they reside: on social media platforms.

Staking claim on Facebook and Twitter, companies are moving in to social media communities and are trying to convince residents to associate with their brand.  To do so, many well known corporations, such as Ford, Proctor & Gamble, Starbucks, and 1-800-FLOWERS, are investing millions of dollars on Facebook advertising campaigns, or “Facebook Ads.”

What are Facebook Ads?
Facebook Ads comprise the four “Sponsored” blocks of information under the “People You May Know” section of a Facebook profile page.  These advertisements appear as a result of the information Facebook you share through your Facebook profile.

How are Ads created?
When creating a Facebook Ad, advertisers select from various fields to target users who advertisers feel align with their desired demographics.  Such fields include likes and interests (music, sports, books, etc.), relationship statuses, sex, languages spoken, and educational experiences.  Through the Ads, companies prompt Facebook tenants to “Like” a Facebook page or to visit an external website.

In other words, when you tell Facebook about yourself, Facebook tells third-party advertisers, and third-party advertisers try to sell you things based on this information.

And don’t think Facebook does this for free.

According to eMarketer, Facebook Ad campaigns will reach a 2011 total of $4.1 billion in global spending, more than double that in 2010.  U.S. spending on Facebook Ads is projected to hit $3.1 billion in 2011, representing 10.8% of total U.S. online ad spending.

Do Facebook Ads actually work?
A study conducted by DDB Worldwide and Opinionway Research states that 75% of the people who liked a Facebook brand did so because of a Facebook Ad. The same study also found that 36% of Facebookers who liked a brand de-Liked the brand because it exhibited a low frequency of updates and/or uninteresting content.

Are there ethical concerns?
The unethical dilemma of Facebook Ads stems from the idea that users are unaware what their information is used for. Is true?

In the past, Facebookers supplied personal data to Facebook so that Facebookers could interact with friends, not with corporations. But in the last four years, Facebook users have accepted that the site not only offers information about Friends, but businesses as well.

Maybe in order to eliminate any ethical concerns, Facebook should change its Home page tag line from “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life” to “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people and the businesses in your life.”

What do you think? Does your company invest in Facebook Ads?

The Expectational Divide: Interplay Between Time and Technology

Time.  The mysterious concept we use to measure the duration of events, to synchronize meetings, and to coordinate our daily lives.

Throughout our personal existence, we learn expressions such as “spare time,” signifying the extra minutes with which we undergo self-chosen activities, and “on the clock,” representing the time spent devoted to someone else, whether it be a boss, a customer, or a student.

It may seem as though time moves slower during the “on the clock” moments versus the “spare time” moments, or vise-versa, but in reality, the seconds, minutes, and hours fall off the clock at the same rate.  One second at work is equal to one second at home.  The only thing that changes is our perception.

Time, as we perceive it, is a methodological way of measuring and symbolizing moments.  Whether the moment represents the millisecond margin of victory for the United States Olympic swim team, the 200 million years during Mesozoic Era, or the time a train departs, time was created to institutionalize the way to interact with the world.

For a social- and commerce-driven society, such as the United States, to function, time perception must be uniform.  We must know when a shipment of goods arrives, when to schedule a conference call, and what time to meet our friends for dinner. Without this normalized perception, our world crumbles.

But within the homogenized measurement we call time exists an individual expectation of task performance and response time, both of which are continually changing because of the Internet.

This article looks to explore those changes and offer suggestions about how to eliminate personal time biases.

For purposes of this article, the definition of a task performance is any assignment, chore, or duty that can be facilitated by the Internet.  Examples include e-mailing a question, proposal or research paper, submitting a column or school assignment, and shopping online.

A response time is the amount of standardized time that passes from initial task performance to requested feedback.  This encompasses examples from the time it takes to receive an e-mail response to the time it takes to load a page after a hyperlink is clicked.

All task performances and response times are based on acquired situational knowledge.

After completing a task performance, therein lie two types of response time expectations; one when interacting with a computer; the other with a human.

The computer response time varies depending on situational factors such as Internet speed (3G or dial-up), browser type (Internet Explorer or Chrome), hardware device (mobile phone or  computer brand), and software (Windows or Mac).  Depending on these factors, response time may vary, but only by seconds.

For example, when using an iPhone, our mind and our patience adapts to the 3G experience, and our response time expectation becomes greater. But when shifting to Wi-Fi, our patience depletes and we expect an increased computer response time.

The human response time, from my observations, seems to rely on personal assumptions based on the background of the task performer.  When sending an e-mail, Facebook message, etc., a task performer assumes a response time based on his or her experience with the medium.

For example, if sending a professor an e-mail, a student may expect an instantaneous response.  This may be because throughout the lifespan of the student, he or she develops preconceived notions about human response time through e-mail; notions that are confirmed when a parent or friend immediately reply to an e-mail, contributing to the student’s human response time expectation.

On the other hand, the professor’s e-mail experience may render a slower response time, causing frustration in the student.

This difference in experience and response assumptions between the task performer and the responder when communicating with same medium is, what I like to call, expectational divide.

Expectational divide is a product of standardized time.  When a culture systematizes time, it expects that the inhabitants of that culture to perceive time as a whole.  When in reality, the community is made up of individuals with distinct mindsets who develop expectations based on their own experiences about how to interact with normalized time.  For example, “on time” in a big city may be considered differently than “on time” in a small town.

In order to combat expectational divide, the task performer and responder must eliminate the assumptions immediately.  The parties must establish ground rules for response times before the divide becomes too large.  Drawing from the previous example of the teacher and student, the teacher must set forth guidelines of adequate email response times during the first few classes.  Once the etiquette is established, the divide becomes nonexistent.

The world is made up of over 6.5 billion human perceptions, each fueled by diverse experiences, which influence the concept of time.  Within this number exists numerous cultures and subcultures who perceive time differently.  Some with a mechanical way to measure moments, others with an innate reliance on mother nature.

But because the world economy is becoming increasingly more global, and communication is no longer limited to interacting based on region or country, we must become aware of the expectational divides that exist not only in our own lives, but also in other cultures across the world.