thus sayeth the dork

Unless we engage with purpose, the charge "Engage for Success" is lame. Third post trying to add clarity to the use of terms like "transparency" and "authenticity". Would love to get your thoughts.

Bla Station - Oppo Small Chair. I'd love to put this in the kid's room.

My friend Joel recently pointed me to this incredible article “Do You Really Have the Balls to Change Our Food System.” The article provides a reality check for people who think shopping at Farmer’s Markets, Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s will make a difference in the way our food is grown and produced.  I found the article pretty sobering — not just because what the writer is saying about our food system -  but because she suggests that if we really embody the values we claim to have, we must be prepared to pay dearly for them.  This may require us to work harder, sacrifice conveniences, lose some perks, change our habits, and even pay more for what we consume.

This hasn’t been the American way for quite some time now!

In a day and age where consumers have more power than ever before, we be should jumping for joy at our newfound ability to stand up, voice our opinions and join with others to introduce positive social and economic change.   At the same time, doing so does require we stand up first.  This requires the displacement of apathy and the exertion of effort.  It also requires us to take on an increased level of exposure.  With our newfound power comes responsibility.  So, we have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to do our part.

But I AM active.  I’m socially responsible.  Really?

If you were asked “Would you buy a rug knowingly produced by abused children in a third-world sweat shop?” or “Would you eat a product if you knew it was harvested by men, women and child slaves who were victims of human trafficking?” you would emphatically say “NO!”

But the keyword here is “KNOWINGLY,” isn’t it?

Chances are, you can easily get both items from your nearest store. It’s it’s the knowing will either force us to change our behavior or defy the values we claim to hold.    NOT knowing gives us permission to continue to take the path of least resistance.   Not knowing lets us complacently consume based on convenience, rather than by listening to our conscience.  Truth however, often demands change by searing our conscience.

What about what you DO know?

First things first.  Forget doing the extra “values based consumption” research for a minute.  Ask yourself whether you are living your values at home based on what you ALREADY know.   Do you buy from companies that support charities, religious or political leanings you are against?   Do you knowingly consume products that have unhealthy or unethically produced ingredients in them, in a manner that fights your conscience?   When a brand supports exploitation, or promotes content that you find offensive,  does that impact the way you shop on a day-to-day basis?

When you are offended, what do you DO?

This isn’t a preaching session here… if anything I’m processing as I write this article, because I’m struggling too.   Where and when do you draw the line?  When a brand assaults you, do you grumble privately?  Do you believe change is beyond you?  Do you boycott brands?   Do you call, write, post about the injustice or wrong you see?  Do you rally others to the cause?  It’s your right to exercise this freedom of speech and free market behavior… but do you exercise it?   What motivates you to ACT?  When is enough really enough?

How does your behavior impact the perceptions and behavior of your kids?

Today, our kids can study global markets in school and explore complex social and cultural issues like gay rights, global warming and human trafficking.   They can even take marketing classes and correspond with foreign students with ready ease.  They are often more savvy and tuned in that we give them credit for… and they watch what we do MUCH closer than it may seem.   So, It’s worth asking if they see us really living our values at home… not just in what we say at the dinner table but in our consumption of goods and services.

Do we telling them it’s okay to patronize brands that assault our values, and laugh all the way to the bank?

In an era of social media and rapid change, this is an important question to ask.  Today, the power of one can be magnified by millions, if we only would ACT.   In an era where many people feel they are not represented well by politicians and lawmakers — perhaps the most empowering thing we can do is take back our power as people - and as consumers.  However, while we should be chomping at the bit to be heard, many of us are instead creating markets for brands that exploit our values (and other people!).  In doing so, we encourage our kids to do it too.

When enough was enough for me… and the cascading impact it has had:

Our daughter was 15 and frustrated because Dad didn’t want her to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch. We didn’t want her to feel like her choices were being taken away from her - but to make good choices on her own.  So, I took her there, and we used this as a springboard to talk about the brand - the in-store experience, marketing, clothing, quality, sourcing….  you name it.

The store visit provided great fodder for discussion.  There were the traditional shirtless, steamy model posters everywhere.  However, our daughter’s first comment was related to her surprise over the lack of variety in the homogenous stacks and racks of mass-produced clothing.   We watched as girls bopped in and out around us… looking very much the same…ponytails with headbands, tight layered t-shirts and perfect butt sweats with the Abercrombie moniker on the seat.  It was interesting to watch the clothes walk around the store… To an individual who made her own wallets out of duct tape (for sheer uniqueness of product) the seeming lack of individuality was a turnoff.

Her next objection was over prices.  I had explained to her that she was welcome to spend her own money in the store, but that her dad and I would not spend any money there because of our objections to A&F’s sexual marketing to tweens and teens.   The cheapest thing we found was a simple white tank top for $38 …  It was cute, but nothing special.  This was a total affront to our hard-working babysitting pro.

We then took a look at garment construction and the labels that show country of origin.  We looked at stitching, searched for threads on hemlines and embellishments.  We looked at construction.  We read labels…. including one that said “Made in Bangladesh.”  It was sobering to consider the tank-top she held (which likely cost less than a dollar to produce)  was made by some of the poorest people on the planet… in a country that has been criticized for exploitation of workers and child labor.

This was a surreal consideration, standing in the middle of a hip, lounge-like setting - and not one that merely pertained to Abercrombie.

I knew I was more convinced than ever about this brand, but beyond my values -I had a 15 year old to contend with, who was racing into adulthood.   I didn’t go through this exercise to get her to embrace MY values or opinions.  I merely wanted her to think — for herself — armed with some new facts, and guided by her own conscience.  After all, if we raised her right, she should be able to come to solid conclusions on her own.

Her conscience told her to leave — and she has never gone back.

Abercrombie & Fitch aligns “culture and values” as a core strength in investor reports.  As a consumer, I choose not to shop there because I feel we have a complete disconnect on our values.  My daughters reasons for boycotting Abercrombie may be slightly different than mine.   For example, I didn’t ask her to picture HER baby girl or boy (regardless of age) in one of A&F’s recent line of t-shirts:

Girls Selection:	Boys Selection:
Tie me up, don’t tie me down All bed no breakfast I always end up on top Anyone you can do, I can do better	Chicks Dig the Long Board Sand Jobs are for Surfers She Goes Both Ways (Beaches & Long Boards) Ride the Tip Maybe Partying Will Help Volley My Balls Please

I didn’t point her to their quarterly “catalog” and I haven’t shown her A&F’s website “Screen Test” area, a simple, anonymous login links users to explicit video.  While you may have to wade through vignettes… each one has romping in full nudity, stripteases, butts and boobs for miles (genitals concealed) - even naked make out sessions:   Guys with girls, girls kissing girls, some allusions to guy on guy action.  This is accessible by any young person with a simple fib about their age.  I believe I snagged more than 10 unique still shots of different video segments with full or partial nudity.  However, I didn’t post screenshots here (I intended to masque body parts) to illustrate my point, for fear of copyright infringement.  Note: Some of these images are on display in the retail stores, as well.

It’s about asking yourself whether the brands you fund support your values.

Today, our daughter is 19.  She carries a new (and sometimes surprising) set of convictions about the way she eats, consumes and shops that may be partially rooted in this experience.   She came back from a year abroad in New Zealand, India, Fiji and Samoa…and informed me she’d no longer accompany me to my favorite coffee house because they don’t unilaterally support Fair Trade.  She won’t drink soda because it’s making us all fatter (and we’re SO blessed to have clean water!).  She won’t eat chocolate that isn’t “fair trade” stamped because she’s been studying human trafficking in the Ivory Coast.  She doesn’t want to be used as a billboard for any brand.  She is right… and it’s creating new convictions in me.

Truth comes with a price.

I didn’t mean to create an activist - I was trying to be a decent parent by making a few points about something I know - which is marketing.   I am learning however, that truth is viral … I can see how Michelle’s convictions can quickly be shared by a group.   If it happens to one of us - imagine the cascading impact when it happens to many.   Once you flutter your eyes a bit, what you see can be a rude awakening.  The more we learn, the more we want to know…and the more it changes us and motivates us to respond.   What’s great is that if enough of us raise our voices, we can create change.  We can destroy the market for reprehensible things … and we can create new markets for beautiful things.

What will you do?

Abercrombie & Fitch  is just one example.  If you care about that -please  make your voice heard (there are a million ways to do so).   If you don’t care about Abercrombie - that’s your right.   Go pick another platform!   The fields are ripe with opportunity.  Whatever you do - don’t just sit there.  Decide how you’ll respond as the truth builds and cascades around you.  You won’t be perfect (I am so far off it’s not funny).  You won’t do everything right. You will sometimes be an unwitting hypocrite.  You can’t take on everything… but you CAN do something - for yourself, and our future.

We lose our right to complain when we choose convenience over conscience.   What do you think?

-->

What say you?

My new post on the experience architect weblog. weigh in on your definition of a "MEketer"!

The next "must have" for any dinosaur enamored kid! Warning - the purchasing site has embedded music running. :-P

More

Privacy Watch

• FTC member rips privacy efforts by Google, Facebook
• IRS, DOJ use social media sites to track deadbeats, criminal activity
• Pa. district accused of student spying puts IT workers on leave
• 'Spygate' teenager demands webcam pix from Pa. school
• FTC seeks extensive information from firms being investigated for P2P breaches
• Pa. school spying case: What's the law?
• Federal judge orders Pa. schools to stop laptop spying
• FTC warns nearly 100 firms of P2P data leaks
• Software maker blasts 'vigilantism' in Pa. school spying case
• Irate parents in Pa. say schools use 'Peeping Tom technology'

Computerworld - Advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation has obtained documents showing how law enforcement agencies and the Internal Revenue Service are gathering information from social networking sites for their investigations.

The documents were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed last December by the EFF and the University of California, Berkeley's Samuelson Clinic. The lawsuit was filed against six federal agencies and sought information on their use of social networking sites for data collection and surveillance purposes.

The agencies named in the lawsuit were the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The EFF this week obtained documents from two of those agencies -- the IRS and the Justice Department -- that show how the government is collecting information from social networking sites, as it has been suspected of doing for some time, said Shane Witnov, a law student and spokesman for the lawsuit at the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. "The documents tell us clearly that the government is using social networking sites for undercover investigations," Witnov said.

In the case of the IRS, formal policies appear to be in place governing the manner in which agents can use social networking sites to investigate taxpayers, Witnov said. Guidelines contained in a 2009 IRS training course show that the agency clearly forbids agents from using deception and fake social networking accounts to ferret out information.

Agents are also limited to only accessing and using publicly available information from social networking sites. "We were actually quite impressed that they had formal training in place and that these were the rules they had established," Witnov said.

The 38-page IRS training document posted on the EFF Web site provides detailed tips to agents on how to conduct searches, locate relevant taxpayer information, narrow down and refine results, and save multiple Web pages using Adobe's Web capture feature. Among the social media applications mentioned are Google Groups, FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and Second Life.

The IRS document provides an example of how information gathered from a social networking site could be useful in a tax investigation. In the example, a revenue officer discovers that a taxpayer he is investigating maintains a social networking site to advertise his services as a comedian. The officer discovers that the individual maintains a video clip on his social network site where he lists his schedule of past and future performances. That information could be useful in determining amounts paid to the taxpayer for his performances and where those payments were deposited, the document noted.

"Future performance sites are potential levy sources and show where the taxpayer will be for possible summons if returns and financial information are needed," the document said.

Meanwhile, the documents obtained from the criminal division of the Justice Department show that law enforcement agents there use social media sites for undercover operations, Witnov said.

A DOJ slide presentation titled "Obtaining and Using Evidence from Social Networking Sites" from the department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section describes how evidence from social networking sites can reveal personal communications that might help "establish motives and personal relationships." The slide show also mentions how content posted by a user on a social media site could provide location information and "prove and disprove alibis."

The presentation also mentions the responsiveness of some social media sites such as Facebook to law enforcement requests for data. It also notes that most Twitter content is public while private Twitter messages are stored on Twitter's servers until a user deletes them. The "bad news" for law enforcement, however, is that there is no contact information for Twitter users, such as phone numbers, making the site less valuable for gathering information. The DOJ documents also say that Twitter only retains the last log-in IP address and does not preserve data unless legally required to do so.

The DOJ presentation also says that going undercover on social media sites can allow law enforcement to communicate with suspects and targets, gain access to nonpublic information and map social relationships.

The goal in getting the government to disclose its policies related to such practices is to foster a dialogue on the appropriate use of social networking sites in criminal investigations, Witnov said.

"There is a balance between privacy and protecting ourselves from crime," that needs to be achieved, he said. There are instances where the seriousness of a crime might override privacy rights. But there need to be guidelines on when and how information from social networking sites can be collected, he added.

Jaikumar Vijayan covers data security and privacy issues, financial services security and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow Jaikumar on Twitter at

@jaivijayan, or subscribe to Jaikumar's RSS feed

. His e-mail address is jvijayan@computerworld.com.

Read more about web 2.0 in Computerworld's Web 2.0 Knowledge Center.

Sign up for the Computerworld Networking newsletter.

IRS, DOJ use social media sites to track deadbeats, criminal activity

Hat tip to @georgedaring ... Happy Meal is ageless: no decay in a year on a shelf - Boing Boing

Took a shot at comparing the two here... USAA, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Marriot/Ritz Carlton and Southwest Air are common on both lists.

I've become increasingly sensitive to this stuff as the step-mom to a now 19 year old. I'm consistently dismayed with images like the zebra print clad girl at center in this promotional image, who looks emaciated. The other two are also very thin... but not as skeletal as the middle model. :-(