Skip to main content

Perception is Reality

Edit: ironically, this article on the latest security debacle at Facebook was released today on the Wall Street Journal. You can't script this stuff. Really.

The subject for this blog entry is an oft-repeated mantra of mine. I'm not sure if I've discussed this here before, but I would argue that even if I have it is worth repeating. The inspiration for this subject is a recently reported "feature" of Facebook that any of your contacts that were kind enough to enter their phone numbers in their profile have that information visible to anyone in your network unless they were savvy enough to make that information visible to their friends only.

Of course, when one of my Facebook friends found out that the had access to their friends' phone numbers they panicked. "ZOMGWTF!!1!11!!uno" was essentially the response, and all of their friends chimed in with similar ones after they confirmed it. Even Yours Truly responded in kind and dutifully reposted this information to further spread the word that Facebook is Bad, mmkay? while continuing to spend 5 hours per day on the obviously terrible site.

It wasn't until a good friend of mine slapped me in the face with a healthy dose of reality - thanks Tom Bridgman! - that I realized I had fallen victim to the general distrust of a website that has been prominently displayed in the news over the past year or so for questionable information security practices. And yet when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that if I really cared about my phone number being shared then I probably wouldn't have entered it in the first place. Ergo, by doing so I created for myself the expectation that others would see it and, if needed, use it. Therefore, this really wasn't a risk after all.

What's worse is that after digging on the Internet for a few moments I realized that this wasn't something that Facebook decided to do recently. In fact, this feature had been around for several months I read and that reminded me: I had read of Facebook's intention to do this before they actually implemented it. It didn't bother me then - I ensured that my phone number wasn't in my profile - so why did it bother me now?

The answer: perception is reality. The perception that the public has of Mark Zuckerberg et al is that they are clueless idiots with respect to information security and that their chase of the almighty IPO have blinded them to the concept of "respecting your user community." Granted, they have done little to discourage this, but now they are deemed guilty before being proven innocent. In fact, I will admit to being on a witchhunt when it comes to Facebook because it does seem that the website was built to look and feel slick without necessarily thinking through all of the required security architecture at the same time. But that doesn't mean that there's fire where there's smoke in spite of what my perception is of them.

Still, perception is reality. If they are perceived to be the Keystone Cops then they are regardless of the truth. And sometimes it requires a slap in the face by someone named Tom to get one to realize this may not be reality.

In business, this tenet requires us as professionals to ensure that our actions are clearly defined by the intention of those actions. This may require close coordination with your team members and your direct manager, but in the end the extra effort will be worth it. Not only will you avoid any confusion incurred when people wonder what the motivation for one action or another was, but your coworkers will respect you for being an open communicator and a team player. And that is always a good thing.

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ