More privacy fears as Facebook buys facial-recognition startup for undisclosed sum

By Daily Mail Reporter

Facebook is bringing one of its long-term vendors, a facial-recognition technology company Face.com, in-house.

The Israeli company's technology helps people tag photos on the Web by figuring out who is in the pictures.

The deal bolsters one of Facebook's most popular features - the sharing and handling of photos - but the use of the startup's technology has spurred concerns about user privacy.

Media reports in past weeks have pegged the size of the transaction at between $80 million to $100 million, but two people familiar with the terms of the deal said the actual price was below the low-end of that range.

Other sources suggest the deal is closer to $60m.

Facebook, which will acquire the technology and the employees of the 11-person Israeli company, said in a prepared statement that the deal allows the company to bring a 'long-time technology vendor in house.'

A Facebook spokesman said: 'People who use Facebook enjoy sharing photos and memories with their friends.

'Face.com’s technology has helped to provide the best photo experience. This transaction simply brings a world-class team and a long-time technology vendor in house.'

Face.com founder Gil Hirsch said on his company's blog: 'Our mission is and has always been to find new and exciting ways to make face recognition a fun, engaging part of people’s lives, and incorporate remarkable technology into everyday consumer products.

'We love building products, and like our friends at Facebook, we think that mobile is a critical part of people’s lives as they both create and consume content, and share content with their social graph.'

Face.com, which has raised nearly $5 million from investors including Russian Web search site Yandex, launched its first product in 2009.

The company makes standalone applications that consumers can use to help them identify photos of themselves and of their friends on Facebook, as well as providing the technology that Facebook has integrated into its service.

Faceboook uses the technology to scan a user's newly uploaded photos, compares faces in the snapshots with previous pictures, then tries to match faces and suggest name tags.

When a match is found, Facebook alerts the person uploading the photos and invites them to 'tag,' or identify, the person in the photo.

Responding to inquiries from U.S. and European privacy advocates, Facebook last year made it easier for users to opt out of its controversial facial-recognition technology for photographs posted on the website, an effort to address concerns that it had violated consumers' privacy.

The deal is the latest in a string of acquisitions by Facebook in recent months, including the $1 billion acquisition of mobile photo-sharing service Instagram.

U.S. antitrust regulators are currently undertaking an extended review of the Instagram deal, which Facebook expects to close by the end of the year.

Shares of Facebook, which continue to trade below the price at which they were offered during the initial public offering in May, were up 5.5 percent at $31.66 in midday trading on Monday.

Google Is Evil

By Rory O'Connor

It’s bad enough when you run a search company in an increasingly social world. It’s worse when anti-trust regulators say you have unfairly and illegally used your dominance in search to promote your own products over those of competitors. Now Google executives, who like to boast of their company’s informal motto, “Don’t Be Evil,” also stand accused of being just that — and rightly so. What other interpretation is possible in light of persistent allegations that the internet titan deliberately engaged in “the single greatest breach in the history of privacy” and “one of the biggest violations of data protection laws that we had ever seen?”

Google’s history of anti-social social networks and anti-trust trust relations that deceptively breach online consumer privacy and trust has already begun to threaten its longstanding web hegemony and its vaunted brand. Now the company’s repeatedly defensive and dishonest responses to charges that its specially equipped Street View cars surreptitiously collected private internet communications — including emails, photographs, passwords, chat messages, and postings on websites and social networks — could signal a tipping point.

With the phenomenally successful and profitable internet giant being newly scrutinized by consumers, competitors, regulators and elected officials alike, all concerned about basic issues of privacy, trust and anti-trust, the question must be raised: Is Google facing an existential threat? With government regulators nipping at its heels on both sides of the Atlantic, Facebook leading in the race for attention and prestige, and “social” beginning to replace “search” as a focus of online activity, the company that revolutionized our means of finding information just a decade ago now finds itself increasingly under siege and in danger of fading from prominence to become, in essence, the “next Microsoft.”

That possibility came into sharper focus recently when fed-up European regulators gave the company an ultimatum — change your lying ways about your anticompetitive practices in search, online advertising and smartphone software or face the consequences. Regulators in the United States are poised to follow suit.

Meanwhile, the secret Street View data collection has already led to inquiries in at least a dozen countries. Yet Google still refuses to ‘fess up and supply an adequate explanation of what it was up to, why the data was collected and who knew about it. To date, no domestic regulator has even seen the information that Google gathered from American citizens. Instead, Google chose first to deny everything, then blamed a programming mistake involving experimental software, claimed that no use of the illicit data in Google products was foreseen, and said that a single “rogue” programmer was responsible for the whole imbroglio. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined instead that the data collection was no accident, that supervisors knew all about it and that Google in fact “intended to collect, store and review” the data “for possible use in other Google products,” and fined Google for obstructing the investigation.

Google’s response to the FCC was not unusual. At every step of the way, the company has delayed, denied and obstructed investigations into its data collection. It has consistently resisted providing information to both European and American regulators and made them wait months for it — as well as for answers as to why it was collected. Company executives even had the temerity to tell regulators they could not show them the collected data, because to do so might be breaking privacy and wiretapping laws! As Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, told The New York Times while citing Google’s stated mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” it seems “Google’s practice is to prevent others from doing the same thing.”

Given its record, and with so little accountability, how can any of us trust Google — or other Internet giants like Facebook, which now faces its own privacy and anti-trust concerns? Who gave these new media companies the right to invade our privacy without our permission or knowledge and then secretly store the data until they can figure out how to profit from it in the future?

No one, obviously … and as a direct result of their arrogant behavior, both Google and Facebook now face the possibility of eventual showdowns with regulators, the biggest to hit Silicon Valley since the US government went after Microsoft more than a decade ago. Their constant privacy controversies have also caused politicians to begin taking notice. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, for example, who is in charge of a subcommittee on privacy, noted in a recent speech that companies such as Google and Facebook accumulated data on users because “it’s their whole business model. And you are not their client; you are their product.”

Small wonder that Google co-founder Larry Page is feeling “paranoid”, as the Associated Press recently reported. Why? As I detail in my new book Friends, Followers and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands and Killing Traditional Media, as the new “contextual web” takes the place of the data-driven web of the early 21st century, it will mean further bad news for Google — even though the company still sold $36.5 billion in advertising last year. Couple Google’s paranoia about Facebook and the evident failure of its latest social network, Google Plus, with its problems about privacy, trust and anti-trust, and it’s no surprise that executives are feeling paranoid. After all, they are facing the very real prospect of waging a defensive war on many fronts — social, privacy, and trust — simultaneously. Despite its incredible reach, power and profit, it’s a war that Google — the 21st century equivalent of the still-powerful but increasingly irrelevant Microsoft — may well be destined to lose, along with the trust its users have long extended to one of the world’s most powerful brands.

Microsoft Tries a So.cl Experiment

By Rachelle Dragani / TechNewsWorld

Microsoft's latest entrant in the online social networking scene made itself available to all users Monday. So.cl -- pronounced "Social" -- is meant as an experimental destination for finding and sharing content, with an emphasis on educational environments. Microsoft doesn't appear to have positioned So.cl as a Facebook killer though. You can even sign on to So.cl via Facebook.

Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) opened So.cl, its experimental approach to a social network, to all users Monday, aiming to create a place to find and share online articles, videos and digital content, all with the help of its search engine Bing.

So.cl doesn't appear to be a direct challenge to established social media sites like Facebook (Nasdaq: FB), Twitter or LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD). In fact, it's possible to use a Facebook ID or a Windows Live account to sign in to the site. Once they're logged on, users can post content in different categories ranging from sports to movies to different hobbies. The site will also recommend further searches.

The site also has a "Video Party" feature, wherein So.cl users can search for and assemble videos to share with other users.

So.cl users can share, comment, tag and "riff" on each other's posts, much like on Facebook or other networks, but it's not meant to be a site where old friends can go to check up on the details of each others' lives. Instead, Microsoft hopes that users will find new ways to interact based purely on content.

So.cl is geared specifically toward students or younger learners. Microsoft's FUSE Labs, the arm of the company that spearheads the project, said the site aims to explore how young people use digital content and social media to learn via the Web.

Microsoft intially rolled out So.cl (pronounced "social") in December to information and design students at the University of Washington, Syracuse and New York University, but now is the first time the network is open to all users.

Microsoft didn't respond to our request for comment.

Different Approach

Microsoft has positioned So.cl as an experiment. It's something that could go in a number of different directions, Roy Morejon, president of Command Partners, told TechNewsWorld.

"With Microsoft focusing on social search and the endless possibilities of personalized search within the So.cl network and Bing/Yahoo search queries, it will be interesting to see what overlap or integration come from this," he said.

If the company can find the right niche within education, said Morejon, it could be an interesting way for Microsoft to get ahead in an area, where sites like Facebook and Twitter are mostly discouraged.

"Much of what Microsoft is pushing is university and education-based networking, especially with their partnering with the University of Washington, Syracuse and NYU," he said. "This is where I see the potential for profits within the education niche and learning how students share information with the purposes of learning."

Over-Saturation

For all the talk of So.cl taking a different approach, though, the network shares some similarities with the mainstream social networks, Ty Downing, CEO of SayItSocial, told TechNewsWorld.

"Unfortunately, until we all can really get a chance to drive into this new network, the jury is still out on how it will compete -- or fizzle -- but as of now, I just see this as a desperate and belated attempt to jump into the billion-dollar social arena," he said.

Even the company's experimental approach to the social networking scene might be too much for the mainstream Internet user to handle, said Downing.

"Consumers are suffering from social burnout," he said. "Consumers are tired, exhausted and simply are not ready to learn another social network, in my opinion."

Ultimately, Microsoft will have to give users a huge incentive to join So.cl in addition to their already time-consuming media habits, Greg Sterling, founder of Sterling Market Intelligence, told TechNewsWorld. That's an incentive Microsoft has yet to offer, he said, and unless it can, the site will ultimately suffer.

"In this early version it hasn't yet answered that question, 'Why should I use this?' And the company will have to aggressively promote the site and its benefits to end users or it will languish," he said.

Ehud Barak refuses to rule out military strike against Iran

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, refused to rule out military action against Iran yesterday, heightening expectations that his government is preparing to authorise an attack on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

By Adrian Blomfield, Jerusalem

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Barak said that sanctions and international diplomacy had so far failed to deter Iran from seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a prospect that would, he warned, threaten the stability of the "whole world".

"We strongly believe that sanctions are effective or could be effective if they are ... paralysing enough, that diplomacy could work if enough unity could be synchronised between the major players, but that no option should be removed from the table," he told the Andrew Marr Show.

The minister's comments come after a week of increasingly insistent claims in the Israeli press that Mr Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, his prime minister, are lobbying cabinet colleagues to support military strikes against Iran.

The two men, considered Israel's chief political hawks when it comes to Iran, are hoping that a report to be submitted by the UN's nuclear watchdog this week will provide justification for military action, observers and officials have suggested.

Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency are expected to present the most compelling evidence yet that Iran is exploring ways to build a nuclear weapon, although European diplomats say the report will not amount to "a smoking gun".

Even so, the Israeli government will seize on its findings to urge the international community to take more decisive action.

The Netanyahu administration tasked Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, with mounting a diplomatic offensive over the weekend in the belief that his dovish credentials will make its case even more compelling.

In a series of interviews, Mr Peres warned that time was running out to prevent Iran from fulfilling its perceived nuclear ambitions and appeared to urge the international community to consider the military option.

"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," he told the Israel Hayom newspaper.

The key conclusions of the IAEA report will inevitably refocus international attention on Iran. It is expected to confirm that Iran has enough fissile material to build four nuclear bombs if it were further to enrich the uranium in its stockpiles. But it is an appendix, already partly leaked, that concentrates of the military aspect of Iran's nuclear programme which will garner most interest.

Satellite images will show a large steel container at the Parchin base near Tehran that appears to be designed for nuclear-related explosive testing.

Documentary evidence will also be provided to flesh out earlier IAEA suspicions that Iran is researching the construction of an atomic bomb trigger, has carried out computer simulations on building a nuclear device and is experimenting with the neutron technology needed to ignite a nuclear chain reaction.

The report is likely to conclude that Iran is researching how to construct a nuclear weapon but is not actively building one. Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said the report was based on "counterfeit" claims.

As alarming as the findings are, European states are still likely to countenance against military action and call instead for a fifth round of sanctions.

"We gave imposed sanctions that continue to expand," Alain Juppe (ED: Acute on e please), the French foreign minister, said yesterday. "We can toughen them to put pressure on Iran. We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilises the region."

Some observers have suggested that the bellicose rhetoric emerging from Israel is recent days is intended to alarm the international community into imposing tougher sanctions that it might otherwise ensue.

But there is also concern in the West that Israel could pursue unilateral military action.

US intelligence agencies have reportedly stepped up their monitoring of Israel to glean clues of a surprise attack after allegedly failing to win sufficiently concrete assurances from Mr Netanyahu that he would confer with Washington before taking military action.

Israeli intelligence has concluded that Iran intends to move the bulk of its nuclear production to a heavily fortified underground facility near the hold city of Qom by the end of the year, increasing the pressure to strike before it does so.

But Israel is thought only to have a window of only a few weeks if it wants to launch military action before the onset of winter, when heavy cloud would hamper aircraft targeting systems, making an attack impracticable. Some military experts predict that if an attack does come it will take place either in the spring, or, more likely, next summer.

As Billy Graham prepares for his 93rd birthday, America’s most famous preacher mulls mortality

By Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. — For the Rev. Billy Graham, America’s most famous evangelist across a career that lasted some six decades, the prospect of old age and death was for a long time something he tried not to think about, despite his convictions about the eternity that awaits human beings.

 “I fought growing old in every way,” Graham, who turns 93 on Monday, writes in the newly-published “Nearing Home,” a book that ranges from Scripture quotations about the end of life to brass tacks advice on financial planning. “I faithfully exercised and was careful to pace myself as I began to feel the grasp of Old Man Time. This was not a transition that I welcomed, and I began to dread what I knew would follow.”

Graham’s book, his 30th, comes not only as he reaches another year, but as America’s huge Baby Boom generation moves into old age, its senior members now eligible for Social Security and retirement. And although in recent years Graham has stepped away from active public ministry, his willingness to be frank about the trials as well as the pleasures of growing old may still have an effect on the millions of Americans whose lives coincided with his time as the country’s most famous preacher.

 “I find that, talking to students and a lot of younger people, many of them don’t know who Billy Graham is,” said William Martin, author of “A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story” and a professor at Rice University. “But the people who will be most interested in this are older, and they do remember and adore Billy Graham.”

Graham has said he wants to preach one last sermon before he dies, and while the new book is not quite that, it has a similar set of themes. Pondering Bible passages on aging and death, exhorting his readers to make sensible changes in their lives (”Take full advantage of your company’s retirement plan, and borrow from it only in an extreme emergency”) in down-to-earth language, Graham’s ultimate focus is always on Jesus Christ.

 “We were not meant for this world alone,” he writes. “We were meant for Heaven, our final home.”
All together, it’s a set of advice that youth-fixated Boomers might not be immediately eager to hear, but coming from Graham it may have more influence. After all, Graham first rose to national prominence with a huge Los Angeles revival in 1949, just as the first Boomers were old enough to notice. Swiftly, Graham — who at the time was just 31 years old — became virtually synonymous with American Protestant Christianity, leading massive crusades at sports stadiums, traveling the globe, and meeting with presidents from Eisenhower to Obama.

Graham’s appeal has not only been durable, it’s extended far beyond the world of evangelical Christianity, according to Grant Wacker, a professor at the Duke University Divinity School, who’s working on a biography of the evangelist.

 “It’s his influence on the broader public that’s intriguing,” Wacker said. “There are a lot of people who are not evangelicals who really admire him.”

Partly that’s because of longevity, Wacker said, and partly because Graham has a reputation for personal integrity that’s in marked contrast with other prominent evangelical leaders tarnished by moral or financial scandal. Primarily, though, Wacker said people outside the world of evangelical Christianity respect the evolution of Graham over his long career as someone who, for example, went from strident anti-Communism in his early days to advocating nuclear arms control in the 1970s, a position scorned by Cold War hawks.

 “He’s acquired first a national and then an international vision over the years,” Wacker said.

“Whether or not they like his theology, people admire anybody who can grow into a wider vision.”
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Is the CIA "following" you on Twitter, Facebook?

By Edecio Martinez

(CBS/AP) - In an anonymous industrial park in Virginia, the CIA is following tweets - up to 5 million a day.

Now don't panic, chances are they're not "following" you.

But the idea is that when rebels, militants, activists or diplomats broadcast information on Twitter or elsewhere, America's spies scoop it up.

At the agency's Open Source Center, the analysts the CIA affectionately calls its "vengeful librarians" pore over all forms of social media in many different languages, from all over the world.

The CIA studies and cross-references the material with clandestinely intercepted information to form a snapshot of anything from the mood in Pakistan after the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden to whether a Mideast nation seems ripe for revolt.