The damage of undercover cameras and leaked footage reaching the Internet has been a dilemma music labels and movie studios have been battling for years. Leaked music videos (i.e. 50 Cent ft. Robin Thicke – Follow My Lead), movie trailers (i.e. Wolverine, which isn’t even set to be released until 2009) and other media often reach the masses and many times do more harm than hype. But now it’s not just large companies battling these leaks, rather individuals who are at the forefront of incriminating information, photos and videos posted about them online.

Recently, the Baltimore Sun broke the story about Officer Salvatore Rivieri and a questionable video of him man handling a skateboarding teenager.

Since then he has become an Internet phenomenon.

The original story was dugg by 8652 people, a second incident dugg by 5981 people, and the infamous YouTube Video titled Baltimore Cop Vs. A 14 year old Skateboarder has garnered over 1 million views. At this rate, if another video pops up, maybe he’ll become more popular than the Star Wars Kid.

So where does Officer Rivieri’s online reputation stand at the moment? Not so positive as you would probably imagine:
We’ve given this over a week’s time to see how the rankings from various news sources, blogs, and video searches populate. We tested a few different combinations of searches on Google for his name:

Google Search for Officer Rivieri
Google Search for Salvatore Rivieri
Google Search for Officer Salvatore Rivieri

From all of those searches, an overwhelming number of the top 100 results for each search query was overwhelmingly negative, if not all. In essence, one YouTube video manages his online reputation.

So, what options does one like Officer Salvatore Rivieri have to repair his online reputation?

1. Go for the source.

Online video repositories such as YouTube, Myspace, Google Video, and ReVVer have ways for copyright owners to request their media to be removed. Labels and studios have been doing this for years, but everyday users can do the same. But be noted, you must be the copyright owner to do this. Each company has its own procedures and requirements for takedowns.

YouTube Content Takedown
Myspace Copyright Violations
Google Video Copyright Information
ReVVer Copyright Information

2. Google Webpage Removal Request Tool

A less well-known feature of Google is that you can request that web pages be removed from its index. While it is true that you can use nofollow, noindex, and Webmaster Tools to remove pages on your own domains, this tool is designed particularly for removing pages hosted on other servers. If a particular page has personal information such a signatures, social security numbers, or credit card numbers, it may be grounds for a Google Removal Request.

3. Official Press Releases

Because Officer Rivieri is employed in a public department, there may be more red tape for him to make a public announcement or issue a press release. But for those who do not have such restrictions, issuing an official release may be a great option. Contact the news agencies and bloggers who wrote or reported the original story, offer your press release, your side of the story, and to answer any questions. Bloggers tend to eat up press releases from people who have made a mistake and admit to. By visiting the top 20 negative search results that appear in a search for your name and personally contacting each one, some damage control can be done and prove successful in closing this chapter of your life.

4. Hire An SEO or Online Reputation Management Company

Hiring an SEO company can have its benefits. With experience in search engine optimization, the company can help you create search engine optimized press releases, build up your social media accounts, optimize your personal web pages, and work you on the road to a positive image on search engines. Wpromote does offer SEO and custom reputation management packages.

Preemptive Measures To Online Reputation Management:

3 Things You Can Do In 15 or Less Minutes:

1. Buy Your Name.com

Buy your name.com. If you have not already and assuming the domain is still available, purchase it! Our advice to Officer Rivieri would be to purchase one of four of these sites (or even all): SalvatoreRivieri.com, Salvatore-Rivieri.com, OfficerRivieri.com and OfficerSalvatoreRivieri.com. As of this morning, all four are still available.
If your name.com is already taken, try different combinations, adding your middle name, or use a hyphen to separate your first and last name. .net, .org and .us extensions are also popular.

2. Add New & Valuable Content

Have your domain? Add a blog or use Google’s Page Creator to populate it with some positive and useful content about yourself.

3. Set up a Myspace Account

Register on Myspace. As much as you may hate it, Myspace has proven to rank well in search engines and when you have negative press, building a positive page can do wonders. Register there, create a profile, fill in some basic info, and even set your profile on private if you’d like.

With time, assuming you do not have a common name or share one with a celebrity, these two sites alone should begin ranking in first page results when searching for your name.

Online reputation management is generally the kind of issue that many people never think about until something bad and public happens to them. If one waits until that moment, though, then something negative may already be defining you. We’ve all heard the old adage that bad things happen to good people and it’s proven to be true. Taking preventative measures to establish an online identity for yourself that portrays you the way that you wish the world to view you is one way to fight bad press before it happens.

Hopefully, nothing as bad as what happened to Officer Rivieri will ever happen to you, but if it does, it’s best to be prepared!

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

With power comes responsibility.

Or at least that is what Google would like us to think.

Don’t get me wrong - I applaud Google’s announcement that they are partnering with the city of San Francisco to provide the homeless with free voicemail and a lifelong telephone number. And even if the feelgood move is little more than a PR stunt (and I’m using that term loosely) to make Google seem more friendly in the eyes of the public, which as of late has become increasingly aware of Google’s ability to screw them by sharing information without their consent, I believe any organizations who poll resources for the greater good are doing something right.

The free voicemail offering for SF’s homeless community arrives thanks to an innovative partnership between Project Homeless Connect and Project CARE (Communications and Respect for Everyone), the non-profit initiative of GrandCentral Communications, which Google acquired last summer. What’s the plan? GrandCentral will host the technology, and Project Homeless Connect will work to raise awareness of the program in the homeless community and get people to sign-up.

“We’re firm believers in the power of technology to improve the daily lives of individuals and communities as a whole, and we recognize that access to phone and voicemail services is one way that Google can help San Francisco’s homeless stay connected with family, friends, social workers, health care providers, and potential employers.” - Craig Walker, Senior Project Manager, Google (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/project-care-in-san-francisco.html)

In theory, once a homeless person signs-up for the free voicemail and phone number, he or she will have a better chance at success. And while a phone number and voicemail service would certainly make it easier for a person to connect with the outside world, simply throwing freebies out there is no where near a real solution.

It is this short-sightedness in their approach which makes Google’s goodwill offering smack of an ulterior motive. That and the fact that Project Care’s free voicemail offering is nothing new, yet was still announced today with much fanfare.

Still, for the purposes of this blog, let us assume that the offering is new, or at least that the fanfare surrounding the announcement today in San Francisco is to promote awareness of the program, and focus on the “facts” as presented in today’s article on MSNBC online, which outlines several things a homeless person can do with a free phone number and voicemail service:

- Leave a callback number on a resume or job application
- Get test results from clinics and health care personnel
- Receive voice messages from family and friends
- Keep in contact with social workers

Wonderful. But what happens when a homeless person gets a callback from a prospective employer? How does he or she call back? Do the numbers also carry free long distance service? How about a local calling plan?

Where does the person get a suit to wear to the imaginary job interview, and how does one learn of the job interview in the first place? Must one have a temporary place of residence where he or she can shower and sleep before even attempting to find a job? What about food? Who feeds these people while they are on the hunt for a new job?

Come on, Google. I agree that providing SF’s homeless community with a free voicemail and phone number is nice. It’s thoughtful. And maybe while GrandCentral hosts the technology at no charge, Project Homeless Connect is not only raising awareness for the program, they are also taking care of the laundry list of things a homeless person needs before using one the free voicemail service to try and find a job is even a remote possibility. Maybe.

But when you take the freebie out of context and paint it as a singular solution to a murky problem, it makes you look callous. It makes you look cold. It makes you look evil.

And it makes the whole thing look like a PR stunt gone awry.

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

It was bound to happen eventually.Newspapers are dying out, and there’s probably not a lot you or I can do about it. Some people are even looking forward to the day when industry giants like The New York Times go under. Like Marc Andreessen.

Andreessen is the Internet entrepreneur who co-wrote the Netscape browser many moons ago, and since has moved on to greener and more modern, lucrative pastures, such as Flock. But as far as his vendetta against The New York Times, it doesn’t make much sense to me - is he simply bitter about the fact that they are holding on? That they raised their prices? Or is he really just looking for something to complain about?

Either way, when it comes down to the idea of doing away with paper newspapers, and viewing all of my news online, I am ambivalent. Yes, I know, ambivalence is rarely a compelling stance, but hear me out. On one hand, I am a writer who likes nostalgia, vintage clothing, and paper newspapers that get your hands dirty when you read them. On the other hand, I am an advocate of sustainability, going green, and conserving where we can - which certainly means cutting back on our use of paper products, especially newspapers that are often read once and then tossed into the trash, recycled if we’re lucky. Add to the mix the fact that I’m a quasi-techno geek who appreciates new technology, even if I don’t always use it, and the problem becomes even more complex.

However, if the question is whether we should shut down newspaper production to conserve resources, the answer is clear. I would easily forgo some nostalgic comfort in an effort to do my part to save the planet. And if it is time for us to do away with paper newspapers, so be it. While there is something familiar and convenient about being able to grab a paper with my morning coffee, just because I can, and despite the fact that I read most of my news online, it is selfish and old-fashioned and consumerist - and I am ready to let go of the luxury that newspapers provide. Nevertheless, the issue at hand is not that simple. And if we stopped producing newspapers today, what would be the alternative?

We can already access much of the content we want online, on the go - and plenty of us are using laptops and PDA’s to do just that. And, while laptops and PDA’s were not designed specifically for reading, the Amazon Kindle is. Are wireless, handheld reader devices the wave of the future? Are sustainability concerns making once luxury items a necessity for anyone who wants to stay informed? Or, as has been predicted ad-nauseam, will the collapse of the paper newspaper make news and information a privilege of the wealthy class, available only to those with enough disposable income to buy a handheld reader, those lucky enough to have access to a computer? Yes, I know that technology is becoming less and less expensive, and that most of us reading this don’t have to worry.

But what about the guy on the street who has a buck-fifty left in his pocket at the end of the day and wants to read the news? What about the kid from a modest home who doesn’t have an Amazon Kindle or a personal computer but still knows how to read? What about the grandmother who is so used to reading the morning paper, it’s become the only thing she has left to hold on to in a cold and lonely world?

Okay, I’ll stop the dramatics - you get the point. Modernizing the way we receive our information is a slippery slope. What helps the planet and makes things more convenient for some widens the divide between the haves and have-nots - and we’re not talking about luxury cars or $4 lattes, houses in the Hamptons and Louis Vuitton bags. We’re talking about knowledge. We’re talking about information. We’re talking about news. And once commerce begins dictating who gets access to what information based on who can afford the latest wireless reader or a computer in their own home, we’re headed down the wrong path.

What is the solution? I don’t know. But maybe Google was on the right path with their wifi experiment in Mountain View. Maybe not. What do you think?

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

As reported yesterday in the New York Times (interestingly enough in the Fashion and Style section), it is adolescent and teenage girls, not boys, who provide the lion’s share of content on the web. This means sites, blogs, personal profile pages, graphics, and the like.

And yet, despite the fact that girls are dominating when it comes to content creation, the computer science and technology industry is dominated by males. Why the disconnect?

Well, first let’s look at the facts among users, according to a study on teens and social media by the Pew Internet & American Life Project:

35% of girls ages 12-17 blog
20% of boys ages 12-17 blog

32% of girls ages 12-17 create their own web pages
22% of boys ages 12-17 create their own web pages

70% of girls ages 15-17 have social networking profiles
57% of boys ages 15-17 have social networking profiles

And on the flip side, women account for only about 27 percent of jobs in computer science.

Now the only question is “Why?” And while some so-called “experts” have opinions, nothing much is being said that is surprising. On one hand, the fact that girls create most of the content on the web can be easily explained away by the idea that “Girls learn to make stories about themselves,” “Girls are creative,” “Girls are programmed to socialize and communicate.”

But how do you explain the disconnect? Why are girls willing to spend tireless hours creating sparkly MySpace layouts for other people to use, but less interested in developing software, pioneering new technology, or cracking a code?

The easy answer is clearly to look towards society and cite gender stereotypes and the fact that men have dominated the computer sciences for so long as the explanation for the lack of women in the industry. But aren’t things changing? If they enjoy technology for content purposes, what stops girls from wanting to take it to another level? If creating web content is serving girls’ natural desire to communicate, connect, and express themselves, are we saying that is enough?

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

Despite its very public financial problems, Yahoo has made the bold decision to reject Microsoft’s initial bid to takeover the struggling company for 44.6 billion, or $31 per share, according to The New York Times. Sources say Yahoo’s official response will be delivered on Monday, February 11th, ten days after Microsoft made its offer.

Yahoo’s board of directors met on Friday, February 8th to discuss the bid but a clear strategy for moving forward has yet to emerge. However, Yahoo executives feel the company is worth more than 44.6 billion, and remaining independent is still a potentially viable strategy. Likewise, working with Google is still a possibility. Yahoo executives are also considering the antitrust challenges it would likely face in either scenario.  According to NPR, a merger with Microsoft would give the new entity an estimated 30% of the market share in search.

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

Illegal music downloading may soon come to a screeching halt.

Yes, that is correct. After years of relatively ineffective legislation and marketing campaigns to raise awareness that downloading music for free on peer-to-peer file sharing networks like Limewire, Soulseek, and Kazaa is illegal and wrong, the recording industry, and specifically the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) is taking steps to work with ISPs to deter online piracy.

How will they do it? The plan is to pass legislation forcing ISPs to terminate the internet connections of users who download music (and other digital media) illegally.

Yikes. According to The Guardian, the IFPI has said that “for every song sold legitimately through services such as Apple’s iTunes music store, an estimated 20 were downloaded illegally,” and John Kennedy, chief executive of the IFPI, feels that “the threat of disconnection would prove a greater deterrent than legal action.”

I’m not sure how this is going to play out in the US, but I have to admit - the IFPI has a point. Most people have no fear when it comes to illegal downloading - no one really thinks they are going to be subpoenaed into court and thrown in jail for downloading a few (or a slew, as it were) MP3s and movies. But if the ISPs are given the power to punish offenders by removing their Internet access? Well, you wouldn’t have to tell me twice. It blows my mind that such legislation is on the table for discussion - and the fact that it would give ISPs such far-reaching power is a little scary. But it is smart.

And it just might work.

Save this Post!

Hide Sites

Likely you have heard about Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo by now…

It was announced on Friday, February 1st to a slew of commentary.

While I lack any new insight on the pending merger, I do find this hilarious.

Is Google really suggesting that a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would compromise the open nature of the Internet? I agree that Microsoft screwed the PC market. I’m both a MAC and PC user and I am currently looking to purchase a new home PC. It is frustrating to be forced to choose between buying a newer model PC installed with Microsoft’s new and bug-laden Windows Vista OS or paying more for an older model PC installed with the time-tested Windows XP. It is my opinion that an unfair abuse of power underlies Microsoft’s sales strategy. That being said, with Google’s domination of search and its increasing influence over the all things Internet, I find it ironic that Google would say Microsoft is challenging the openness of the web.

There may be more to Google’s interjection than meets the eye, however, as the New York Times reported today. And as consumer and someone who works online, I would prefer that Yahoo remain an independent entity. I wouldn’t even mind if Google helped raise the funding to make an independent Yahoo possible, and whether or not that would benefit Google is less of a concern to me than what might happen if Microsoft and Yahoo merge. Yes, I think it’s ironic for Google to call out Microsoft on its history of antitrust troubles, but in the end, if it came down to choosing between Microsoft/Yahoo and an independent Yahoo by way of Google, I would choose the latter. Then I would go buy a PC. Go figure.

Save this Post!

Hide Sites