• auto generation of follower lists from individuals’ private email and chat behavior
• auto completion of some email addresses in a feature similar to Twitter’s @reply
• auto connection to Google Reader and Picasa Web Albums.

Google responded to privacy concerns within days. However, for some who had very real privacy concerns, this simply wasn’t good enough.

I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.

There’s a BIG drop-off between them and my other “most frequent” contacts.

You know who my third most frequent contact is?

My abusive ex-husband.

Which is why it’s SO EXCITING, Google, that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader, including all the comments I’ve made on Reader items, usually shared with my boyfriend, who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from, and never did.

There’s still a lot to learn about how we integrate privacy into new products, but we know the golden rule - personal information should never be published without personal consent.

What does it mean to have this many web pages mapped? You can now sort more of your search results by their relevance to your profile!

The number of links keeps doubling as we collectively visit an increasing variety of webpages. A half million links were mapped by April 2009, 1 million by June 2009, and now we’ve mapped 2 million!

Thank you for contributing to this grand experiment. As we create a virtual topography of the World Wide Web together, let us know if your profile has led you to web pages you wouldn’t have found otherwise or if anything isn’t working for you.

You can enrich your own experience by matching your DNA profile with people you know, or asking them to give feedback on your profile.

The Facebook blog is a hotbed for complaints. As Peter ‘mos Undef’ Mann observed, since the new settings were rolled out, Facebook users have had to navigate six distinct versions of what aspects of our friends lists we can protect and how to set those restrictions.

Well Facebook, you fooled me once with Beacon, and now you’ve fooled me twice with your new privacy settings. Please don’t fool me again – make the profit you’re entitled to, just don’t invade my privacy or my friends’ privacy to do so.

Beacon, which shared sensitive data across users’ Facebook profiles, has been a disaster from the start, causing outrage over incidents like broadcasting the price paid for an engagement ring — before the ring had been presented. In response to the widespread backlash, (the “How dare you betray me?” response we’ve detailed in previous posts) Facebook has had to backpedal dramatically. First they switched from case-by-case opt-out to permanent opt-out, then to opt-in only, and finally they canceled the program altogether.

Facebook still doesn’t get it; they don’t have to invade your privacy to deliver ads which are meant for you. Until Facebook learns that they can give you what you want without tracking you, they are under-serving you.

This ability has some pretty impressive applications for a range of fields. In online advertising it’s being used to serve up more relevant ads; in the insurance industry it’s being used to offer fairer premiums.

VortexDNA’s potential implications caught the attention of men’s magazine M2, which featured VortexDNA CEO Branton Kenton-Dau in their July issue. The two-page spread featured an in-depth interview — and a very styley photo of Branton with a Maserati! Click on the image below to view full-size.

These properties of ideas are why I get so excited when I see people whose ideas are in alignment with ours. The more of us in alignment, the bigger our dream becomes. And so I just about fell off my chair when I read Cracking the Green Code from John Marshall Roberts. Roberts assesses why people’s statements about the environment differ from their behaviors — and his assessment describes with exactitude how the Web Genome Project works and why purpose and values can be used to predict behavior. Here’s an excerpt:

Although inherently dynamic and non-linear in nature, a person’s daily behavioral choices are patterned by their core values—those fundamental beliefs, assumptions, and aspirations that they use to make sense of the world around them. A person’s core values act as a gravitational force of consciousness, literally shaping the way the world looks to them, and in turn how they look to the world vis-a-vis their day-to-day behaviors.

To illustrate by way of analogy, imagine spinning a marble around a bathroom sink. At any given point it would be difficult to predict the marble’s exact location, because its movements are somewhat chaotic and random, fluctuating wildly based upon even the most minute textural gradients in the sink surface. In fact, even the most learned physicist would have a terrible time devising an equation that would predict this marble’s exact path. Yet, anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily predict where the marble will end up eventually—right down the drain.

This metaphorical drain shapes our marble’s path in the same way that a person’s core values shape their thoughts and behaviors. Understand a person’s value systems and you will grasp the size, shape and contours of the mental sink around which the myriad “marbles” of their everyday thoughts are endlessly pulled as they strive make sense of the data their five senses send them.

Roberts’ analogy is a wonderful description of how the Web Genome Project works, and why we can personalize search results without knowing anything about your history. We don’t care about your history — what you’ve done or where you’ve been. We care about the sink — what shapes you?

So how do we get an understanding of the sink? We emulate physicists and doctors.

Physicists often work by inference: the only way we know about black holes, for example, is by observing the behavior of matter near them. Doctors do the same thing: we search for antibodies to tell us whether someone has a disease instead of searching for the disease itself.

So too with the Web Genome Project. We all have a numeric profile, and we’ve mapped a certain number of links with their own profiles. The numbers are sticky in both directions: as you click on a link, its number gets integrated into yours and vice versa. No retention of clickstream, no way to know where you’ve been, just the image of the sink that guides who you are.

Thank you, John Marshall Roberts! Thank you, Web Genome Project participants! Together, we are creating the topography of our online universe.

It’s a brave new world.

Gaining acceptance into the Mozilla public directory is a gratifying stamp of credibility for the Web Genome Project and our movement to create a virtual topography of the web.

We’re hugely grateful to you: for downloading the add-on, for writing a review of it on Mozilla, and for being a part of the Web Genome Project. Tell your friends and help us get to 10,000,000 links on the WGP!

If you’re like most Americans, it was roughly four and a half years ago at the Democratic National Convention. I refer you now to one line in particular of that historic speech:

“We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.”

There is a reason the confidentiality of library records is sacrosanct: it is because the use of them for government intelligence virtually guarantees an imposition on civil liberties.

When we think about going to the library and checking out a John Grisham or a Stephen King, it’s hard to imagine what all the fuss is about. But imagine instead that you’re interested in religion and you check out a Bible or a religious reference book. Now imagine that instead of a Bible, you check out the Koran.

There are millions of versions of this scenario. You love planes and you check out a book to see how jetliners work — now imagine you’re of Middle Eastern descent. You’re fascinated with serial killers. Your friend David recommends Devil in the White City. You’re a student of human behavior and pick up a copy of The Lucifer Effect. Any one of these situations could imply suspicious activity — and, in more than 99% of cases, that suspicion would be dead wrong.

In the book Free Expression and Censorship In America, Herbert Foerstel describes the FBI’s attempts to monitor communist activity through the library system:

At [the University of Maryland, College Park], the agents asked librarians to report on anyone with a “foreign-sounding name or foreign accent” who used the libraries. Such a characterization would fit the majority of students and faculty on most American campuses, yet librarians were asked to monitor reference questions and on-line literature searches, including searches of [the National Technical Information Service], in order to establish the subject interests of these suspicious foreigners. All of this surveillance was conducted despite the fact that the UMCP libraries contained no classified materials, and their collections were presumably open to anyone. When the university complained about the surveillance, an FBI representative claimed that the libraries should feel no obligation to protect the access and privacy rights of noncitizens.

This backstory is why I was glad to see that a court is allowing a lawsuit against Blockbuster to proceed. The lawsuit is backlash from Blockbuster’s participation in Facebook’s ill-conceived Beacon program, which shared user purchase activity across the social network.

Just like libraries, it may seem that the potential harm from this program is minimal. You rent a copy of Wild Things, and the next thing you know your out-of-town girlfriend spots it on your News Feed and you’re having to explain yourself. But just like library books, movies can be an indication of who we are. Unfortunately, they are symptoms that point in a million different directions — symptoms that carry with them a potential for misinterpretation as tempting as a serpent’s apple.

We are eternally trying to find the right balance between freedom and security. Thankfully, books and other media coexist with speech firmly on the ‘freedom’ side of the line. Let’s keep it that way.

What do you think?

Say Madison and Harmon, ‘In his innovative book… Daniel H. Pink argues that our world has shifted from “left brain” dominance to the reign of right-brain thinkers: designers, inventors, teachers and storytellers. He deems this era “The Conceptual Age.”‘

Bravo. I’m delighted that empathy, play and meaning are coming into their own. Likewise, it’s about time businesses recognized the importance of design, story and symphony. Bring on the right brain!

At the same time, I find it interesting that the book is (probably intentionally) titled, ‘A Whole New Mind’. I haven’t read the book, so I’m not presuming to rebut its contents; instead, I’d like to explore a bit our human tendency to polarize.

When we polarize, we seek an extreme. We reduce the world to distinct categories, and then we elect from those categories: left or right, male or female, conventional or organic. We succumb to the ‘tyranny of the OR’ described by Collins and Porras in Built to Last.

The world we live in provides ample fuel for this tendency. It obligingly splits itself up into night and day, north and south, up and down. It practically begs us to choose sides.

If we pay close attention, though, we start to notice what philosophers and poets and gurus have observed throughout the millenia: that no thing exists without its opposite. Without night, day is meaningless; without north, south is meaningless; without up, down is meaningless. Yin contains yang and yang contains yin. Our world is the wholeness that contains all of our extremes.

The left brain — that logical, rational, emotionless creature — is what gives us the power to analyze, to reason, to plan, to calculate. It allows us to pay our bills, buy our houses, send our kids to college. None of these things are bad things.

The right brain — that creative, playful, feeling creature — is what gives us the power to explore, to dream, to invent, to transform. It allows us to find meaning, intuit connections, appreciate beauty. None of these things are bad things.

I prefer to live a life in which I can appreciate beauty AND pay the bills. I prefer to live a life in which I can plan ahead AND experience spontaneous joy. I don’t believe these things are mutually exclusive.

The research done by VortexDNA, whose technology powers the Web Genome Project, shows that companies that pay equal attention to all their stakeholders — customers, staff, shareholders, community and society — consistently outperformed companies that had a disproportionate focus on any subset. I would argue that the same need for equal attention exists for individuals, and that we use our brains to greatest effect when we use them whole-mindedly.

It’s wrong to say that the right brain is more important or the left brain is more important. The only ‘right’ brain is the whole brain.

Do you use your whole brain?

From the introduction:

The exploding world of data, as we’ll see, is a giant laboratory of human behavior. It’s a test bed for the social sciences, for economic behavior and psychology. Researchers at companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo are busy hiring scientists from fields as diverse as medicine and linguistics to help them grapple with the bits of our lives that are pouring in. These streams of digital data don’t recognize ancient boundaries. They’re defined by algorithms, not disciplines. They can easily cross-fertilize. This means that psychologists, economists, biologists, and computer scientists can collaborate as never before, all of them sifting for answers through countless details of our lives. Jack Einhorn, the chief scientist at a New York media start-up called Inform Technologies, predicts that the great discoveries of the twenty-first century will come from finding patterns in vast archives of data. “The next Jonas Salk will be a mathematician,” he says, “not a doctor.”

Baker goes on to explore the many ways in which people are being modeled and mapped, and in which mathematics are being used to predict human behavior. So far, though, the scenarios all fall under what we’d now think of as ‘traditional’ behavioral modeling: look at what you’ve done, and use it to predict what you’d do. In some cases, the connection may be correlative rather than causative (the example he gives is that romantic-movie watchers are more inclined to click on ads for car rentals), but the net result is the same.

…math-based predictions rely on patterns of past behavior. Let’s say I fly to Taiwan tomorrow and purchase 200 Michelin tires with my credit card. Within minutes, MasterCard will be calling my house in New Jersey, asking if that’s really me on an Asian spree. My buying patterns and those of card thieves are etched into their system.

These models obviously have their place, but they have some limitations. I don’t know anyone who complains when a credit card company monitors our activity with them and throws up a flag when there’s something abnormal. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone who would be happy if their credit card activity were given to other companies in order to better target sales offers.

Once our data is out in the world, its uses and movements become largely disconnected from us and our ability to grant permission. Like derivative mortgages, the data takes on a life of its own, independent from the individual who generated it — and there’s something about that that just doesn’t sit well with most of us.

So, yes, mathematical modeling is where we are and where we’re going. Mathematical models that predict behavior without tracking individual histories? Even better.

Have you read The Numerati? What did you think of it? And do you see the connection with the Web Genome Project as well?