Source:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/08/13/change-google-results
August 13, 2013 – Here and Now - NPR
As people become more concerned about the
information available about them on the Internet
and how it is used, they turn to different
approaches to protect their online presence.
“There has been somewhat of a shift in terms of
this overall concern about the vast amount of
information,” said Michael Zimmer, who studies
and teaches about internet privacy at the
University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told Here
& Now. “And I think for a lot of
people, they’re getting this sudden realization
that, ‘You know what, maybe I need to slow down
a little bit, or even remove myself all
together.’”
You can’t really just send an email to Google
and say, ‘Please remove all these websites that
have information about me.’
–Michael Zimmer
Trying to be ‘unGoogleable’
Most drastically, people attempt to be “unGoogleable”
— meaning no information about them can be found
in search results.
But that’s typically not possible.
“You can’t really just send an email to Google
and say, ‘Please remove all these websites that
have information about me,’” Zimmer said.
However, he says it is worth paying attention to
what information about you can be found online.
Online reputation management
“It’s going to be hard to be unGoogleable, but
at least you can try to monitor and manage a
little bit what about what is discoverable about
you,” Zimmer said.
One of the method — which has become a highly
lucrative industry — is online reputation
management (ORM).
Individuals and businesses use ORM services to
stock their search results with positive
articles and reviews. As a result, the more
negative results are driven toward the bottom.
‘Black ops’ reputation management
In the ethical gray area of online reputation
management is the creation of fake articles
about people or companies whose reputations have
been spoiled.
Graeme Wood reported in
New York magazine about the world of “black ops”
reputation management.
The founder of that company told me that $10,000
a month was really the minimum amount that
someone would be asked to spend.
–Graeme Wood
A college classmate of his, Phineas Upham, had
been accused and acquitted of tax evasion
charges, but Wood became interested in how
quickly the negative press about Upham was
trumped by positive press when he Googled
Upham’s name.
“There was a whole universe of fake websites,
fake magazines, fake entities, that seemed to
exist and to have been built up just to make the
Google profile of this person look good,” Wood
told Here
& Now.
$10,000 per month for ‘black ops’ ORM
However, it wasn’t apparent that the websites
were fake. Wood had to do a great deal of
digital investigative work to trace those
websites to their source, a company called Metal
Rabbit Media.
“The founder of that company told me that
$10,000 a month was really the minimum amount
that someone would be asked to spend to engage
their services,” Wood said. “The industry of
online reputation management — I was quoted a
figure of $5 billion nationwide. So it’s quite a
lot of money people are spending to make
themselves look good online.”
Wood says that although black ops reputation
management is a questionable practice,
reputation management itself isn’t unethical.
Best practices
“You can take the good things that you’ve done
and accentuate them,” Wood said. “You can take
the bad things that you’ve done and not mention
them. The unethical ways, I think, consist
mainly of taking things that you haven’t done
and awarding yourself garlands for those, and
that’s what I think happened in this case.”
However, not everyone is Phineas Upham.
“Luckily, most of us are just not interesting
enough for the New York Times to write about us
when we do stupid things,” Wood said. “But, if
we happen to suffer the fate of being so
interesting that the New York Times does write
about our crimes and alleged crimes, then the
best thing we can do is amazing things that are
impressive and that are real.”
Guests
·
Michael Zimmer,
assistant professor in the School of Information
Studies at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
He tweets @michaelzimmer.
·
Graeme Wood,
journalist whose work has appeared in New York
Magazine, The New Yorker, The Atlantic and other
publications. He tweets @gcaw.
Transcript
JEREMY HOBSON, HOST:
It has been almost three months since NSA leaker
Edward Snowden became an international celebrity
and brought to light government surveillance
programs that have many Americans concerned
about whether the information they share
electronically is really private. Perhaps some
have even tried to delete some of their online
history.
But what about going to the extreme and becoming
totally unGoogleable? Well, that is happening,
too, and joining us to talk about it is Michael
Zimmer. He's a professor at the University of
Wisconsin who studies the Internet and digital
privacy. Professor, welcome.
MICHAEL ZIMMER: Thank you, Jeremy, for having me
on the show.
HOBSON: Well, why would somebody want to be
unGoogleable? Because there are people who do
want to not be found on the Internet.
ZIMMER: I think there's an increasing concern
over the amount of information about us that's
online. You know, a lot of us share information
about ourselves, and we do it willingly and
openly. I have a Facebook account, a Twitter
account, a whole bunch of other social media
accounts, but I think there's been, you know,
somewhat of a shift in terms of this overall
concern about the vast amount of information.
So many things that I'm sharing over time, all
of a sudden they can see it all, even on
Facebook where they set up this timeline, and I
can see five, six, seven years' worth of
information. And I think for a lot of people,
they're getting this sudden realization that you
know what? Maybe I need to slow down a little
bit and even remove myself altogether. And
that's what's becoming increasingly hard to do.
HOBSON: And if they want to do that, there are
some tools available. Tell us about some of the
options for people who want to take themselves
off the map, if you will.
ZIMMER: Well, I mean, the simple ways are to
delete your account, so you can go to Facebook
and delete your account. And you can, you know,
scrub your Twitter account and a few other types
of accounts. But a challenge there is even
though I delete my accounts, you know, I don't
know who may have captured that information
yesterday or last week or a month ago.
HOBSON: Right.
ZIMMER: And it could be, you know, sitting in
some archive somewhere. It could have been
reposted or repurposed somewhere else. So that's
where this gets really hard. I know there's some
users, you know, especially younger users, that
are getting kind of creative in how they use
Facebook. They deactivate their account every
day so when they're not online they can't be
found, and no one can go and see them or post on
their wall without them knowing, and then the
next morning when they go back on the computer,
they reactivate their account.
So they're kind of like actually leveraging the
fact that Facebook keeps your information for a
little bit even if you close your account. So
they're trying to find some ways to kind of hide
themselves a little bit, at least when they're
not sitting in front of the computer. But to
completely remove yourself, it gets really hard.
You can't really just, you know, send an email
to Google and say please remove all these
websites that have information about me. That's
just not how the Internet's working.
HOBSON: You could say it's going to be more
time-consuming to delete your presence on the
Internet than it is just to have one, which is
time-consuming enough.
ZIMMER: Absolutely, and that's where it gets -
you know, with the amount of social media that
we have, you know, the fact that we all have
cameras, we all have mobile connections, you
know, there's going to be pictures posted of me
or tweets posted about me being on this radio
show, and I'm not going to have any control over
what people are saying that I'm doing, let alone
be able to sort of track it all and manage all
that.
HOBSON: Is it worth it, then? I mean, is it
worth trying to get yourself unGoogleable?
ZIMMER: It is worth paying attention to what is
searchable and what you can find out about you.
I mean, I have a Google alert set up for me, and
it's, you know, partial vanity but also partial
just to see, you know, what is being posted
about me. And all of a sudden if I appear in the
article, or I see there's a picture that I'm
tagged in, I can see what's out there.
So, I mean, it's going to be hard to be
unGoogleable, but at least you can try to
monitor and manage a little bit what about what
is discoverable about you.
HOBSON: And it does seem like it's becoming
trendy right now to be unGoogleable. There's a
coolness associated with, for example, not being
on Facebook.
ZIMMER: Right, you see these kinds of trends
happening, especially with younger users or
people that are newer to these platforms. I
sometimes joke that there's just too many
40-year-olds like me on Facebook and that
younger users just don't want to be there
anymore. So it's about being on different kinds
of platforms and finding different ways to sort
of express yourselves online.
I think users are using more anonymity, and I
think a platform like Tumblr or even Twitter
allow users to be a little bit more expressive
than Facebook, which requires you to use your
real name and put all this personal information
on there.
HOBSON: What are the downsides of being
unGoogleable beyond the time consumption it
takes to do so? I'm thinking about when you
apply for a job, somebody might want to look you
up and see if there's stuff online about you,
and if they don't find anything, they might be
concerned.
ZIMMER: Right, there almost could be sort of the
unanticipated consequence of being completely
invisible could throw up a red flag, like, well,
why aren't you online, why haven't you been
engaged. A lot of my students are going into
jobs related to technology, and they need to
have some kind of a Web presence just to show
that they're savvy and that they're connected.
So there's plenty of reasons for us to have
these profiles and all this information, but
again it's sort of finding that right balance.
HOBSON: And for society as a whole, I've read
that there are concerns if we're taking
information away from the Internet, we lose the
ability to see larger trends that are going on,
to see what's really happening.
ZIMMER: Right. I mean, the fact that we're
sharing so much about our everyday lives, and a
lot of people think that it's all this pointless
information, but it really does have a lot of
value. It has social value for me just to be
able to exchange and share with friends, but
even for researchers, Google does some
interesting tracking of health based on what
people are searching on Google, in terms of flu
symptoms.
HOBSON: Right.
ZIMMER: You can do some amazing research by
capturing open and public streams of Twitter
activity, to see what people are interested in
today or this hour or this very moment. So there
would be a lot lost if we all suddenly, you
know, took all of our information, all of our
interests and activities, you know, from the
Internet.
But it's going to be always this worry about,
well, who's getting access to it, what are they
doing with it. I might be OK if Google has the
information, but, you know, well what if the NSA
asks for it.
HOBSON: Yeah, which is becoming more of a
concern now than ever before.
ZIMMER: Exactly.
HOBSON: Michael, this is such a new phenomenon,
the idea of being unGoogleable. Have we ever
faced anything like this before, before the
Internet existed, where people would try to take
themselves off the grid?
ZIMMER: Well, there's always examples of people
that want to, you know, reduce the amount of,
you know, technology in their lives or control,
you know, their PR or their image. I mean,
that's always existed. I think what's been
unique about, you know, with the Internet is the
reach that the information has and the speed at
which it can spread.
HOBSON: Michael Zimmer is an assistant professor
at the School of Information Studies at the
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Professor,
thank you so much.
ZIMMER: Thank you, Jeremy.
HOBSON: And perhaps being unGoogleable is too
far a stretch for many people, but if you've
just got some covering up to do online? Can you
sanitize your Internet presence? The answer is
yes, but it will cost you big-time. We'll find
out the length some people will go for
reputation management after the break.
MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI, HOST:
Well, how far would you go? Would you try to
erase parts of your digital parts of your
digital footprint, and did it work? You can let
us know at our website, hereandnow.org. You can
use your real name if you dare...
(LAUGHTER)
CHAKRABARTI: Or maybe even an Internet handle.
Stick with us, back in a minute, HERE AND NOW.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
HOBSON: It's HERE AND NOW, and we've been
talking about our online presence and the people
who try to make themselves unGoogleable. But if
you have to leave a trace of yourself online,
can you manage what that trace is? Can you
remove the bad and leave only the good?
Or, if there is no good, can you pay someone to
make it look like there is? For answers, we're
joined by Graeme Wood, who has done an extensive
piece for New York magazine on what he calls
black ops reputation management. He's with us
now from Berkeley, California. Welcome.
GRAEME WOOD: Thank you.
HOBSON: Well, this all started with a personal
connection with you. Tell us about that.
WOOD: I had a classmate who had a very
distinctive name, and so just reading the
newspaper, I was able to find out that he had
been indicted for allegedly bringing cash into
the country illegally after having - had stashed
it away in a Swiss bank account. This was a
large amount of money, $300,000, and it's not
every day you find out that someone you've known
or someone you've met has carried eight pounds
of $100 bills across the border.
HOBSON: Yeah. And we should say, you say he has
an unusual name. It's Phineas Upham. So that is
very unusual.
WOOD: It is. It is. And, you know, it's
sometimes a good fate to have a distinctive
name, and sometimes not. So when I started
looking into how this case was going, just by
Googling, you can find out a lot about a person,
including a lot of things that turn out to be
false. And so by looking, I found that there was
a whole universe of fake websites, fake
magazines, fake entities, that seemed to exist
and to have been built up just to make the
Google profile of this person look good.
HOBSON: And did you find any evidence of the
money laundering?
WOOD: You could find it if you looked. And, you
know, since the New York Times, Bloomberg
Business Week, entities like these also carried
it, and these have a lot of clout with Google,
they could still be found if you Googled his
name. But you'd also find a lot of fake stuff
that had been built just for the purpose, I
think, of concealing the real news.
HOBSON: What were you finding? What was the fake
stuff?
WOOD: So, the first fake stuff that I found was
a series of press releases about magazines that
had appointed him to their editorial boards.
And, you know, I'm someone who writes for a
living, so I know how difficult it is to get
published in magazines. And it's tough work. So
I was briefly impressed by that.
But then, if you look just a little bit more
carefully, you find that these magazines don't
have much of a trail. And if you go to the
offices that are listed for them, then you find
that there's nothing there at all. In one case,
it was just the alley behind an Indian
restaurant.
So you start finding things like this, and you
realize that the universe that's been built up
is completely fake.
HOBSON: Now, you figured what Phin Upham did.
How much money did he have to spend to change
his online reputation in this way?
WOOD: I asked him if he used a service, and he
wouldn't talk to me. So I never got anyone to
confirm this. But, in this particular case, I
had to look at digital footprints. I had to look
at websites, metadata, and it took quite some
time to build a very, very strong case that this
had happened. The digital footprints are there.
And if you follow them, you find a company
called Metal Rabbit Media. And the founder of
that company told me that $10,000 a month is
really the minimum amount that someone would be
asked to spend to engage their services. And he
seems to have been engaging their services for
well over a year.
HOBSON: Ten thousand dollars a month. Why would
somebody feel it necessary to spend that kind of
money just to change what you're getting when
you Google them?
WOOD: Well, if you have a very distinctive name,
as he does, then by Googling, you really can't
deny that it's you. You can't claim that you're
not the one who's mentioned in these criminal
indictments. So he was looking - he's still a
young man. So he was looking at perhaps a
lifetime of having people he meets, people he
wants to impress Google him and find that he has
a less-than-savory reputation.
So I guess if you have enough money lying
around, and you think that you might be able to
game the system, then you do it.
HOBSON: Well, so what is wrong with what he did
to fix his online reputation? There's nothing
illegal about that.
WOOD: No. There's nothing illegal about it.
There's nothing illegal about lying. There's
nothing illegal about saying you've done things
that you haven't. And it appears that he has
done things that most of us would consider
immoral, definitely would consider misleading.
Even if they're not illegal, there are things
that usually cross our ethical boundaries.
HOBSON: Graham, how common is this kind of
thing? How many people out there are themselves
versions of Phineas Upham, if you will?
WOOD: I think his case is an extreme one. The
industry of online reputation management was - I
was quoted a figure of $5 billion nationwide. So
it's quite a lot of money that people are
spending to make themselves look good online.
Now, not very many people have the resources to
spend $10,000 a month or $300,000 total,
perhaps, on reputation, but there's definitely
lots of people who go through a kind of
whitewash of their reputation when they try to
put their public face forward.
HOBSON: And is it just so that they'll be able
to get jobs in the future? Is it about their
friends finding out about their past? Why do
they do it?
WOOD: It's because we all know that it's a kind
of malpractice, whether in business, if you're
looking for a business partner, or in romance,
if you're looking for a date, you know, you have
to Google someone to find out who they are. And
when you do, you trust Google more than you
trust the person in real life, often. And
sometimes, that leads you toward the truth, and
sometimes it's misleading.
HOBSON: Now, towards the end of the article that
you write in New York magazine, you end up
feeling sort of sorry for people like Phineas.
Why is that?
WOOD: Well, I have a name that is not easily
Googleable. You can Google me and you'll find
me, but you'll find another bunch of people with
the same name. And so that makes it a little bit
more difficult for the things that I have done
to stick with me forever.
I think the things that he is alleged to have
done might stick with him longer than he really
deserves. And, you know, you don't get to choose
these things, and it might be tough - it would
be even tougher for someone who didn't have the
money to try to clean them away.
HOBSON: Well, Graeme, did you find that there's
an ethical way to manage an online reputation?
WOOD: Absolutely. You can take the good things
that you've done and accentuate them. You can
take the bad things that you've done and not
mention them. The unethical ways, I think, would
consist mostly of taking things that you haven't
done and awarding yourself garlands for those,
and that's what I think happened in this case.
Luckily, most of us are just not interesting
enough for the New York Times to write about us
when we do stupid things. But, you know, if we
happen to suffer the fate of being so
interesting that the New York Times does write
about our crimes and alleged crimes, then the
best we can do is do amazing things that are
impressive and that are real.
CHAKRABARTI: Graeme Wood's article is in New
York magazine. You can find a link to it at
hereandnow.org. You can Google his name - again,
it's G-R-A-E-M-E Wood - and find more of his
work. Graeme, thank you so much for your time.
WOOD: Thanks for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
CHAKRABARTI: Well, Jeremy, Brian Taylor(ph)
wrote us this email. He says: What about people
who have common names? He has a common name, and
it's difficult to find him online. So maybe we
should all be Brian Taylors.
(LAUGHTER)
HOBSON: Or John Smiths or...
CHAKRABARTI: Maybe not Meghna Chakrabarti.
HOBSON: That might be a tough one. Well, we'd
love to hear what you think at hereandnow.org,
at Facebook.com/hereandnowradio. We're also on
Twitter @hereandnow. I am @JeremyHobson.
CHAKRABARTI: And I'm @ MeghnaWBUR.
HOBSON: That's easier to type out than Meghna
Chakrabarti.
CHAKRABARTI: Yeah, the last name took up too
many characters on Twitter.
HOBSON: Well, the latest news is coming up next,
HERE AND NOW. Transcript provided by NPR,
Copyright NPR. |