A couple of related news stories last week suggest some possible survival strategies for advertisers in the age of Tivo and other personal video recorders.

Last week Tivo and Google announced a deal in which Google will record “anonymous, second-by-second DVR viewing data from TiVo” devices so that companies that purchase TV ads through Google will have a more precise measurement of an ads exposure. This would include knowing which ads are being watched and which are being skipped.

And it will be granular enough to know which ads are being partially watched. For example, when using the Tivo remote control to skip over ads, most users see at least a few seconds of the commercial before the programming resumes. Data backing up that assumption could lead to increased pricing for that coveted time.

“By using TiVo’s massive samples and second-by-second granularity in its currency measurement, Google TV Ads can now provide an order of magnitude of improved accountability for advertisers,” Tivo said in a press release.

It comes as no surprise that Google would use its vast analytical capabilities to figure out how to better monetize advertising on devices like Tivo. After all, they already slice and dice users’ Web surfing habits to deliver maximum benefit to their online advertisers. And, as long as they keep the reporting completely anonymous, I’m not going to lose much sleep over the privacy implications, though I understand why

some people might be concerned about how technology now makes it possible to track our TV viewing habits along with our Web habits.What I find more interesting is that, according to Advertising Age, Tivo is teaming up with MillersCoors to display Coors Light ads when people fast forward, rewind or pause during NFL games.

Tivo-owning football fans are twice as likely to watch the games live than other programming, according to Ad Age, which says only 20 percent of first-run football games are viewed on a time-shifted basis. Still, that’s a lot of viewers and, if this works out well for football games, we will likely see it with other types of programming.

What concerns me more than putting up what amounts to a banner ad while a viewer is skipping a commercial is the embedding of advertising into the program, which, of course, makes these messages immune to Tivo’s fast-forward button.

We’re already seeing little ads on the corner of the screen during some entertainment programs — mostly promos for other shows on the same network. I find that annoying and distracting but at least it’s honest advertising. I’m more bothered by product placement.

Apple Macintosh has only a single-digit share of the computer market. Yet, whenever you see someone use a computer on TV or in a movie, the odds are good it’s a Mac. When you see someone drinking a Coke on a TV show, it’s not likely because the actor happens to prefer Coke over Pepsi. It’s because of a business deal.

I worry there will be pressure to include embedded ads and product placement in TV news as well. There was a time when network news was more of a service than a money-making venture. The networks used it to add to their prestige with viewers and with Congress and the FCC.

Today, TV news departments are “profit centers,” which is one reason we’re seeing an increasing blur between news and entertainment. “News” shows like NBC’s “Dateline” and CBS’s “48 Hours” cater to our collective fascination with real-life crime drama while local, cable and network news programs are increasingly becoming venues for what amounts to gossip. It’s also becoming commonplace for TV news programs to hype that network’s entertainment shows.

It’s also common for TV talk shows like “The View” or “Oprah” — not technically news programs — to hype products for a fee. There is often a disclosure in the credit roll at the end of the show but you might not know it from watching and listening.

At a time when media companies are hurting — partly because of changes in technology — I suppose I should applaud creative ways to keep the doors open and free content flowing. But I worry about integrity.

Call me naive, but I believe that journalists and even entertainers should have a higher calling than just making money. Sure we need to pay our bills, but I grew up during a time when journalism was a highly respected profession, along with law and politics. How times have changed.

by Larry Magid

Shopping online does carry some risk, but so does shopping at brick-and-mortar stores. At least online shoppers don’t need to worry about fender-benders in the parking lot, pick pockets at the mall, or getting the flu from all those fellow shoppers.

But the nice thing about shopping online is that by following some basic guidelines you can be reasonably sure you’ll have a safe experience.

Secure your PC: The first thing you need to do is be sure your computer is secure. Trend Micro’s education director David Perry, says that “bad guys these days are operating by planting a keylogger on your system that listens in, surreptitiously waiting for you to use your credit card or your bank password so that they can steal your money.” So, even if you’re dealing with a legitimate merchant, you’re at risk if your computer is infected. Your best protection from these attacks is to keep your operating system and browsers updated and use a good and up-to-date security program. If you’re getting or giving a Netbook or other PC for the holidays, make sure that security software is installed right away. Most security companies offer a free-trial version that will tide you over for a month or so, but be sure to subscribe so you get ongoing protection.

Click with care: You’re going to be getting a lot of offers via e-mail this holiday season. While they might be legitimate, there is the possibility of some offers coming from criminals trying to trick you into giving your password to a rogue site or visiting a site that can put malicious software on your computer. Your best protection is to not click on any links–even if the message looks legitimate–but to type in the merchant’s URL manually.

Know the merchant: : If you’re not familiar with the merchant, do a little research like typing its name (and perhaps the word “scam”) into a search engine to see if there are any reports of scams. Look for user reviews on sites like Eopinions.com. Look for seller ratings if you locate the merchant through a shopping search engine like Google Shopping . Google doesn’t certify the integrity of the sites that come up in its searches, but if you see lots of seller ratings that are mostly positive, that’s a pretty good sign. You’re generally pretty safe with sellers that are affiliated with shopping aggregators like Amazon.com, Yahoo Shopping, Retrevo or BizRate. Microsoft’s new Bing search engine offers a cash-back program with affiliated merchants.

Look for trust seals, but verify they’re legitimate

(Credit: BBBOnline)

It’s a good idea to look for seals of approval from Truste or Better Business Bureau Online, but remember that a seal is only a graphic. It can be counterfeit. To be sure, visit the certifying agency’s site to look up the merchant.

When you’re about to enter your credit card, make sure you’re on a “secure “site. The URL should have an https at the beginning (s for “security”) and there should be a small gold lock in the lower right corner of the browser. This isn’t an iron-clad guarantee, but still worth looking for.

If you’re still not sure, look for a phone number and call them. Aside from eliminating the chance of a keylogger grabbing your information, you may get a little more assurance talking to a human being.

Pay by credit card: Credit cards offer you an extra level of protection including the right to “charge back” if you feel you’re a victim of fraud. The credit company will investigate your claim and permanently remove the charge if fraud can be proven.

Also some credit card companies offer extra protections including extended warranties and protection against loss or theft. Federal law limits your liability for misuse of a credit card to $50 but many credit card companies will waive that limit. Unless you’re very sure about the merchant, don’t provide them with a checking account number and never disclose your social security number to online merchants.

It’s also a good idea to check your online credit card statement frequently. Most credit card companies will display recent charges online within a few days of the actual transaction. While you’re on your credit card company’s site, check your interest rate. Credit card companies have been known to “adjust” rates (usually upward) for a variety of reasons.

Know the real price: Be sure you understand the actual cost of the item, including shipping, handling, and sales tax. That can have an enormous impact on the final price. Many merchants are offering free shipping during the holidays and some merchants that have both online physical stores will let you pick up the item in the store for free. In most states if you do business with a merchant that has a physical presence in your state, the merchant is required to collect state sales taxes. Although it’s tough to enforce, some states expect you to self-report all of your online purchases and pay sales taxes when you file your state income tax return.

Happy returns: Be sure you understand the merchant’s return policies including the deadline for returns and what documentation you’ll need. In most cases, they won’t refund the shipping charges and you’ll have to pay to ship it back. Always keep your packing until you’re sure you’re not going to return it.

Read the privacy policy: The policy, according to the American Bar Association’s Safeshopping.org, should disclose “what information the seller is gathering about you, how the seller will use this information; and whether and how you can “opt out” of these practices.”

Enjoy the holidays: By paying attention to these tips, the odds of your being victimized by online fraud are pretty low –another good reason to be cheerful during the holiday season.

by Larry Magid

This post originally appeared in the San Jose Mercury News

More and more people are using social networking sites, including, sadly, criminals seeking to take advantage of the rest of us.

Threats on those sites include applications and quizzes, as well as malware, worms and viruses. But the main risk, says Trend Micro’s Rick Ferguson, is information you post yourself that can jeopardize your privacy and your security.

Ferguson says that “we have a tendency on social networks to share more information that we need to.” While you may need to reveal which schools you went to and where you worked to connect with old school mates or colleagues, “you don’t need to share your date of birth, phone number and address,” Ferguson said.

The threats are not limited to Facebook or MySpace. Ferguson also warns users not to be lulled into a false sense of security when using professional networks like LinkedIn. “Because it’s a professional networking site, people give it more credibility and think it’s safer than other networks,” he said, adding that you put yourself at risk by “posting your entire résumé and exposing your business connections.”

Both Ferguson and Symantec safety education director Marian Merritt warn about online quizzes and applications that are popular on social networking sites.

“Every time you accept an application, you’re giving some third-party developer access to information in your profile,” Merritt said.

She warns that “quizzes are sometimes attached to fraudulent marketing companies.” She said her own teenage daughter took an IQ quiz and had to put in her cell phone number to get her score.

“She didn’t notice that the terms of service would sign her up for premium texting until the bill came.” Fortunately, this particular teenage girl has one of the most cyber-security-conscious moms on the planet, who convinced the carrier to stop the charges.

Some quizzes and surveys reveal far too much information. I recently came across a third-party survey that asks users to reveal “60 Things You Didn’t Know About Me” with such questions such as “What are you wearing?” “When was the last time you were drunk?” and “How often do you have sex?” With answers to questions like these on your profile, it doesn’t take a sophisticated hacker to derive information that he shouldn’t have access to.

Some Facebook users don’t seem to be aware of the difference between private messages and wall postings. I have a friend who is posting personal messages to family members’ walls, unaware that those messages are seen by all of the person’s Facebook friends.

Ferguson says to beware of applications that don’t seem to have any purpose other than to spread themselves. Some of these applications automatically send notices to all your friends, telling them that you’re using the applications and encouraging others to install them as well. In addition to spamming your friends, these applications could be gaining access to your profile information and displaying unwanted advertising to all who sign up.

Company spokesperson Simon Axten said Facebook has a team of people and software tools working to enforce rules for application developers. MySpace, according to a spokesperson, also employs a robust security team and tools, including software to block outgoing and incoming spam and warn users about potential phishing sites.

Facebook’s application development process, said Axten, “is relatively open to stimulate innovation and allow people to develop quickly.” But he said developers must agree to a set of rules which, among other things, prohibit them from sending messages on the users’ behalf.

Developers are now required to disclose what information they collect during the installation process, and Axten recommends that users “pay attention to those notices.” He said developers are allowed to collect only the information that they need to run the application, but that can sometimes include profile information and the profiles of your friends.

On all sites, be cautious about clicking on any links, especially those shortened ones that are commonly used on Twitter. If a link is shortened by bit.ly or tinyurl, you have no idea where it will lead you until after you click. Most security suites can warn you before your browser opens potentially dangerous Web sites.

There are other threats, including the Koobface worm, that can steal your password and send spam from your account. Most Internet security programs will protect you against this and other malware.

Users should also be careful about links that appear in posts and messages that could lead to phishing or malware sites. And put on your thinking cap before responding to a friend’s plea for money, even if it comes from your friend’s Facebook account and includes a horrendous story such as being stuck in an overseas jail. Try to reach your friend some other way before responding, because it’s likely a scam.

Disclosure: I am co-director of the nonprofit Internet safety organization, ConnectSafely.org, which receives support from Facebook, MySpace and other social networking companies.

This article originally appeared in the Nov 16, 2009 San Jose Mercury News

by Larry Magid

Most newspapers are declining in circulation, and the Internet is partly to blame. I make part of my living writing for newspapers, but even I am less likely to subscribe to or buy the print edition now that I can get my news for free on my PC and my cell phone.

But now some media moguls are talking about shutting off that free spigot of news and information.

News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch said in August that he plans to charge for content for all his online newspapers, including The New York Post, the Times of London, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph. The Wall Street Journal, which was purchased by News Corp in 2007, is one of the few newspapers that has long charged for much of its content.

Like a lot of other media companies, News Corp. has been struggling. Fortunately for its stockholders, the company’s TV and movie divisions had a very good quarter ending Sept. 30, but its newspaper and information services business earned only $25 million during the period, compared with $134 million during the same period last year.

Murdoch is far from alone. In late October, the Audit Bureau of Circulation reported that newspaper sales in the six-month period ending Sept. 30 were down by 10.6 percent on weekdays and 7.5 percent on Sundays from the same period the year before.

The Los Angeles Times — where I wrote a tech column in the ’80s and ’90s — fell from 1.1 million readers in 2000 to 657,000 this year. USA Today had a 17.1 percent decline. Even the venerable New York Times suffered a 7.3 percent decline, falling to under 1 million circulation for the first time since the 1980s. How do I know this? I know it because I read it in The New York Times. Well, sort of. I actually read it at nytimes.com, and therein lies a big part of the problem.

Online news is cannibalizing printed copies. In theory that shouldn’t matter because, like the dead trees version, the online edition of newspapers carries advertising. Sure, there’s a subscription or a newsstand fee for the printed edition, but subscription and newsstand sales have never represented the bulk of newspaper revenue. There has been a lot of hope that online advertising would more than make up the slack from lost print revenues. Unfortunately that hasn’t been the case.

The response to the crisis is actually making things worse. To try to compensate for lower ad revenues, newspapers are raising newsstand and home-delivery prices, reducing the number of pages and laying off journalists, which means that those who continue to subscribe are paying more for less.

So it’s no wonder the media moguls like Rupert Murdoch want to put an end to free online access. If they start charging people to read the paper online, they may not only make more revenue from the online side but also may encourage more people to buy the printed paper because the content will no longer be free online.

But it doesn’t strike me that Murdoch’s wishful thinking will turn into increased revenue. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal, I can’t think of any newspaper that has been successful charging for online access.

In 2005, The New York Times tried charging for access to its opinion columns but it was a failed experiment. In 2007, the paper ended its “TimesSelect” service and reverted to free access to the opinion section. Long before Murdoch acquired it, The Wall Street Journal had been able to get away with charging because its financial content is unique. But what works for The Wall Street Journal isn’t going to work for Murdoch’s New York Post readers.

Maybe we need to find another model? I realize there would be a lot of objections to using tax money to finance journalism, but I wonder if we should take a look at the British model that finances the BBC’s TV, radio and online programming with a $237 tax on whatever device you use to watch TV, be it a computer, personal video recorder, mobile phone or TV set. In Britain, according to the British government’s TV licensing Web site, “watching TV without a valid license is a criminal offense.”

I’m quite sure that criminalizing unlicensed Web surfing or TV viewing would be even more unpopular with Americans than mandatory health insurance. But unless media companies can find another way to stay in business, we may very well see some serious proposals along these lines.

I spent part of last week in Washington, D.C., attending a gathering that turned out to be a watershed moment in the 16-year history of online safety education.

The third annual conference of the Family Online Safety Institute brought together about 400 Internet safety advocates around the theme of “Building a Culture of Responsibility: From Online Safety to Digital Citizenship.”

The event, which drew participants from 15 countries, was different from previous years in that young people were viewed less as potential victims of online crimes and more as participants in a global online community.

That’s not to say that participants didn’t worry aloud about youth safety, but instead of focusing on real and imagined dangers, we focused on how adults can work with young people to encourage both ethical and self-protective behavior. It’s all about media literacy, digital citizenship and critical thinking.

This was a big change from just a couple of years ago, when Internet safety gatherings typically focused on ways adults could put up walls to protect children against predators, pornography and other dangers.

While Internet porn continues to be an issue, the “predator panic” that was rampant a few years ago has largely been put to rest as safety experts and law enforcement studies from the Crimes Against Children Research Center and elsewhere show that, statistically, the odds of a prepubescent child being sexually molested by an

online stranger is virtually zero and the odds of it happening to a teenager are very low, especially when compared with children who are harmed by family members and others they know from the real world.When kids are harmed or annoyed online, the culprit is far more likely to be a fellow young person. Though exact numbers are hard to come by, about a third of teens report having been subjected to some type of cyberbullying or online harassment ranging from slightly nasty comments to cruel messages, impersonation or even stalking.

Kids are affected by their own behavior ranging from posting pictures or comments online that could come to haunt them later to “sexting,” sending nude or nearly nude pictures of themselves to others.

While such images usually wind up only in the hands of the intended recipient, there are plenty of cases where photos have been distributed to others or posted online, causing embarrassment or potential ridicule. Even worse, there are teens who have been charged and convicted of producing, possessing and/or distributing child pornography.

While most prosecutors realize that child pornography laws were meant to protect, not punish, kids, a few misguided ones have used these laws against children.

When I said that the Internet safety field is 16 years old, I’m dating it from the publication of the first widely disseminated Internet safety booklet and set of rules which, I confess, were written by this columnist. Back then, I came up with some assumptions like “that 12-year-old girl might be a 40-year-old man” and “posting personal information can lead to harm,” but I wrote that material long before we had research to show that these and other early assumptions weren’t actually the case.

Years ago, I stopped giving out that type of advice but others continue to perpetuate myths about Internet dangers. What made me feel good about this conference is that all of the panic messages were off the table. What we talked about instead is how we can help adults better understand how kids actually use technology and how we can work with kids to better manage risk.

One theme at the conference was “one size doesn’t fit all.” Most kids are actually pretty savvy about keeping themselves safe from serious harm, but others — who are taking big risks — need more serious intervention. Risk prevention specialist Patti Agatston suggested we consider using health prevention models for Internet safety education — basic safety advice for most youth and intense counseling from mental health professionals for the small minority of young people who are taking extraordinary risks both on and offline.

There was a lot of discussion about the lack of interactive social media in schools. Federal law requires schools that receive federal “E-Rate” funding to use Internet filters, and many schools use these filters to block social media sites like MySpace and Facebook.

No one was suggesting that kids should spend their school days socializing with friends on Facebook and MySpace, but several speakers wondered why schools aren’t using social media as part of the educational process.

Anne Collier, my co-director at ConnectSafely.org, suggested that we think of social media “as the new book.” These are interactive books, in a sense, where kids are both consumers and authors. Rather than banning them, schools should be channeling kids toward educational use of this technology.

There is too much noise in my life, and technology is partially to blame.

Let’s start with cell phones. When I enter a theater or a meeting, I try to remember to put it on vibrate, but other times I let it ring. Mine uses a generic tone, and I try to keep the volume at a moderate level. However, as I go about my day, I notice all sorts of loud and sometimes obnoxious tones.

One trend is for people purchasing their choice of music as a ring tone. Hey, I’m all for people expressing their tastes, but do they have to do it in front of me?

I was at a coffee shop the other day serenely contemplating my latte while a fellow patron sat for several seconds listening to what I think was a Taylor Swift song on her cell phone. Unlike Kanye West, I wouldn’t be rude enough to interrupt, but I wasn’t in the mood to listen to her music at that moment. I would have much preferred my fellow coffee drinker have her phone on vibrate or a discrete ring.

Putting up with ringing phones is bad enough, but some smart phones make a noise every time you get an e-mail or a text message. Last week, I reviewed the Motorola Droid. By default, it said “Droid” in a robotic voice every time a message came in. I ended up removing the battery at night so I could sleep, and eventually I figured out how to modify the settings so that it only announces phone calls.

My BlackBerry has an alarm which is a great way to get me out of bed in the morning, but if I fail to turn it off, it rings every morning and it doesn’t stop until I press the “dismiss” key. The BlackBerry’s alarm is loud enough to wake everyone up from the kitchen, where I generally charge my BlackBerry. Even if I choose to sleep in on a particular morning, I’m forced to go downstairs and turned the dang thing off.

We have a Dish Network satellite receiver and personal video recorder in our bedroom, which I mainly use to record and watch “The Daily Show” before I hit the pillow (probably not the best way to relax before bed). Trouble is, the recorder’s hard drive starts to spin for no apparent reason in the middle of the night. Sometimes, it’s loud enough to wake us up and force me to pull the cord from the wall to shut it up.

I’m glad we passed the days when people would walk around with loud boomboxes next to their ears — but now it seems as if everyone has little white earbuds permanently implanted. I have no noise complaints about this — most of the time only they can hear what’s on their iPod — but it bothers me that these folks are isolated from the people around them. When I was in Washington, D.C., last week, I needed directions, but almost everyone nearby had earbuds in and couldn’t hear me. The ones that weren’t listening to music were on the phone.

I may have been walking down a crowded street, but as far as getting anyone’s attention, I could have been in a ghost town.

Security companies are warning consumers and Web site operators to be wary of iPad-related search scams.

“This is just the kind of opportunity fraudsters like to exploit by poisoning search terms,” said Symantec’s Candid Wueest. Wueest also warned about “iPad-related spam and phishing attacks hitting consumers hard over the coming weeks.”

Don Debolt, CA’s director of threat research, warned about “black hat search optimization”–a scam whereby hackers take advantage of security flaws in blogs and other sites that use PHP scripting language to embed popular search terms like iPad to trick search engines into directing people to compromised legitimate sites that may have nothing to with the subject matter at hand. If people click on the link to a page on that infected site, they are then redirected to a malicious site that can implant malware on their machine or tempt them to install a rogue security product.

It has nothing to do with the iPad itself. Similar techniques have exploited other popular searches such as the Haitian earthquake and the death of Michael Jackson. Google has a trends page that shows hot topics and hot searches. On Thursday afternoon, the iPad was represented four times on the Top 10 list. “Obama State of the Union” led the list.

The entire process is automated, said Debolt. “We found that it’s a very systematic and programmatic process right now.” The attackers, he said, are using software to query search engines to find out the popular search topics and then “feeding that information into compromised Web sites so that those compromised sites and the content they put on those sites get indexed by the search engine bots.” To the end user it looks as if those sites have relevant content, but when you click on those pages, you are immediately taken to another site that has the malware.

Debolt warns people to be careful if a search engine points to a site where “the root domain of the URL doesn’t have any type of affiliation to the topic or is not an information portal you’re familiar with.” He warns site operators, especially those with a content management system that uses PHP, including Joomla, WordPress, and Droopa, to be sure they are using the latest version of their Web software.

I have a bit of experience with injected code. I operate a number of WordPress blogs including SafeKids.com which, a few years ago started serving up Google ads for Viagra and other male enhancement products. These were far from appropriate context-sensitive ads for an Internet safety site and when I took a look at my site’s code, I discovered that there were hundreds of links and terms that had been injected to my site as a result of a security flaw in my WordPress template. I replaced the template and updated the WordPress software and the problem went away. Now I’m careful to make sure I’m always running the latest version of WordPress.

As usual, people are cautioned to make sure they are using up-to-date security software and that both their operating system and browser are up to date.

This column originally appeared on CNET News.com

There is such a thing as too much information, especially if it’s all coming at you all at once. That’s how I felt when I started using the new Motorola CLIQ from T-Mobile — the latest smart phone to feature the Google Android operating system and the first Android phone from Motorola.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a terrific phone with some unique and worthy features. But there is one “feature” that can be a bit overwhelming. The phone is designed to keep you ultra-connected to your social networking buddies whether they be on FaceBook, Twitter or MySpace. By default all of your friends’ Tweets and Facebook updates show up on the home screen you see when you turn on the device.

For people with a lot of online “friends” that can be a torrent of information — far too much to digest on a 3.1 inch screen. Another interesting “feature” is the way it consolidates all your contact information. I’m not sure this is good or bad, but when I go to the phone’s contact list, I get the email contacts from Gmail that I definitely want along with contact information from all my Facebook, MySpace and Twitter “friends.”

That could be a good thing but — to be honest — most of my online friends aren’t actually people I would ever call or email so having a few thousand extra people in my contact list is a bit much.

To its credit, the phone does let you filter contacts but I didn’t learn that until I took the extraordinary step

of actually looking at the manual. Once I figured that out, I limited the contacts I see to only folks in my Gmail address book — still more than I can easily manage but far less than everyone who’s ever interacted with me on a social networking site.While I recognize the advantages of having your entire social life spread out before you in the palm of your hand, I also think it’s important for people to be able to prioritize incoming information. Everyone has their own definition of what’s important but — for me — it’s typically voice mail, text messages and email, in that order, followed at a distance by Twitter and Facebook.

Regardless of what devices you use, the bigger issue here is how much information you need flowing at you. In order to have time to earn a living and maintain relationships with family and real-life friends, I’ve had to limit my use of Twitter and Facebook. I do check in now and then and try to update my status whenever I have something to say that I think might interest others, but I’m finding myself less obsessed with these services than I was just a few months ago.

For me, it’s not a privacy concern but a bandwidth issue. I’m not talking the bandwidth of my cable modem or 3G phone, but the limited bandwidth of my brain which, lately, is unable to process all the data that’s coming in.

Of course, I’m probably not the target demographic for CLIQ. Teens and 20-somethings are growing up in a multi-tasking environment where information is coming in and going out an accelerated pace. And from outside appearances, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing. When my now-25-year-old daughter was in high school she would surf the web, exchange IMs, talk on the phone, watch TV and do her homework all at the same time yet still managed to get good grades.

Still, I do worry about the complete lack of boundaries between people’s online and online lives. Today’s young people don’t “go” online, they “are” online 24/7. If I were to bring out my Blackberry while having dinner with my wife, I’d get a dirty look and, if I didn’t put it away soon, might be spending the night in the spare bedroom. But I’ve spoken with several people in their 20s who have no qualms about texting during dinner with a significant other or a group of friends.

The other night I was having dinner at a restaurant next to an entire table full of young professionals who — instead of talking with each other — were on their phones texting or snapping photos to send to whatever friends they had who weren’t having dinner with them. Kind of makes you wonder why they bothered getting together in the first place.