Twitter is dangerous
Summary: Twitter is rapidly becoming a serious threat to corporate information protection. The program's great strength -- many-to-many messaging -- becomes its great weakness in this context.
Twitter is rapidly becoming a serious threat to corporate information protection. The program's great strength -- many-to-many messaging -- becomes its great weakness in this context.
Imagine this scenario: 20 people are in a confidential meeting, one of them using Twitter. This attendee broadcasts an off-hand "tweet" (Twitter comment) to his or her "followers" (Twitter friends). With traditional instant messaging, that message would be received by perhaps one or two others. With Twitter, that comment may be seen by 10, 100, 1000, or more followers.
Why it matters? Twitter has the power to turn groups of innocent bystanders into instant analysts. Even seemingly innocuous comments, when put before a large group of people, can be analyzed more rapidly, and in more depth, than you might expect. This can easily cause ranges of unintended, highly negative, consequences.
If you're running corporate IT, what should you do? You've got a few choices:
- Pretend the problem doesn't exist. Not being one to advocate head-in-sand methods, I can't recommend this approach.
- Block, or monitor, Twitter, as you might do with traditional instant messaging programs, such as Yahoo or AIM. It's a tried and true method - not the best, but it works.
- Acknowledge the inevitable, and establish clear information sharing policies and guidelines. In the long run users, like water, will seek their own level. In other words, users will eventually adopt the tools they want, whether you want them to or not. The wise among us will recognize this certainty.
The solution: be prepared to strongly enforce information-sharing policies. If confidential information is being shared, even innocently, question the judgment of the sharer.
By the way, if you think Twitter isn't mainstream enough to matter, think again. It's currently got almost 700,000 users, many of them influential early adopters. Twitter isn't going away, and like all tools, it can be used for both good and evil. Balancing Twitter's dangers and benefits may not be easy, but you'd better start thinking about it today.
Disclaimer: I love Twitter, so it pains me to write this. If you want to follow me on Twitter, click here.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Social Media Policy Time
What does that mean?
Forms of media
I am seeing this as not an IT policy issue but as an issue with potential to impact the entire business. Having said that, IT clearly needs to lead this discussion, bring it to the table and show the parallels with the more mainstream forms of media. As you say, there are some influential Twitterers out there ... and an off-hand tweet could cause significant damage.
I am not necessarily saying that Twitter and its ilk ought to be banned ... just that there needs to be a greater level of awareness about its potential impact.
Is that practical?
RE: Twitter is dangerous
#hashtags (http://www.hashtags.org) the messages get
archived for ever.
Must remember to remind Eric to not Twitter "Off to
{name target} with Sergey to get our offer accepted"
Thanks for the explanation
RE: Twitter is dangerous
We have 2-5 years (or even more) to think on a proper solution :)
Imagine this!
Same problem, different technology.
Far easier to unknowingly release info with Twitter
RE: Twitter is dangerous
RE: Twitter is dangerous
Yes a "cigarette" can start a fire but only when the person using it is an idiot. Same goes for Twitter.
This is why confidentiality agreements etc. exist. Most people are smart enough to play by the rules but the agreement lets you purge the idiots from your organization rather than blocking a useful tool for everyone else in spite of them.
Why do so many organizations block IM
other risks
There is a concern about loose lips, but I think it's a distant second to network security.
Depends on your outlook
Example, yesterday as the smoke appeared from the old white house building...newjimmedia tweeted that there was smoke.... meanwhile on the west coast.. i receive the news within seconds.... I had the information BEFORE the networks could broadcast it....
Think about the power of an almost instant network, and what it change it could affect!
Scary, yes, dangerous, perhaps...but could be an extremely powerful tool if leveraged correctly in a company. Why spend billions of dollars managing your employees when you could be encouraging them to use the network as a tool...as a very powerful tool?
Collective action is always scary to those in power, but those with vision can figure out how to use that power, instead of react to it!
The only way to stop it
Then, there's this comment from within the replies: Yes a "cigarette" can start a fire but only when the person using it is an idiot. Same goes for Twitter.
Well, folks, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we seem to be overrun in this day and age with idiots, and some of them pop up in board rooms, in the White House, and in the Pentagon.
Twitter: Over-caffeinated
no wonder we don't have time for people anymore, our noses are buried in a machine!
Most people spend their entire youth trying get out from under having to "report" to someone else-- why would anyone want to subject themselves to this constant punishment other than to get more attention that they can't get otherwise?
::Proceeding to next article on ZDNet::
=\
You're missing something
US Gov Policy
It's odd because the network administrators are crippling access to information, when in reality existing policies (like the aforementioned "media" policy) actually should be adequate. Particularly for the military where one can be literally punished with career implications for releasing information without proper consent.
I completely agree with the "instant" analyst theory. Foreign governments do this all the time - that is taking disparate pieces of information and putting them together into actionable intelligence.
So, why shut down Twitter with such a stringent policy? Probably to stop work time "goofing off" vs actually being concerned about OPSEC or IA reasons. The trade-off is not having a great resource - for instance I get news from Twitter from BreakingNewsOn.
BTW, this is being typed from a non-government computer at a commercial facility.
RE: Twitter is dangerous
RE: Twitter is dangerous
http://ivebeenmugged.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/is-twitter-real.html
George