Are You on Google+ Users Beware!

Are You on Google+ Users Beware! I don’t know about you, but I get frightened easily. Especially by how much Google knows about me. Yesterday my office chair fell apart and so I did a Google search for a balance ball chair; in the right margin, up came an advertisement for Jockey underwear. Let’s see: I ordered from Jockey yesterday. Do they really think I need *more* underwear today? Maybe the bots aren’t smart enough to know whether I actually purchased that item or just browsed and might need a reminder to pull the trigger. Or maybe they can’t tell what items are likely to be re-purchased and which will last me the next two years? I mean, if I purchase bus tickets to Chicago I very well might need them again next week. But underwear? In any case, Google knows me well. Too well. And now they’re invading even more. As of November 11, Google is able to tell my friends, family and colleagues that I endorse certain products, unless I opt out. My picture and even quotations from me can be used in ads for these items! Here’s what Google has to say about their new policy: Here are a few examples of shared endorsements on Google. The Summertime Spas example below shows a shared endorsement displayed in an ad: Setting: Shared Endorsements in Ads This setting below allows you to limit the use of your name and photo in shared endorsements in ads. It applies only to actions that Google displays within ads; the Summertime Spas example above shows a shared endorsement appearing in an ad on Google Search. Changing this setting does not impact how your name and photo might look in a shared endorsement that is not in an ad - for example, when you share a music recommendation that is displayed in the Play Store. You can limit the visibility of activity outside of ads by deleting the activity or changing its visibility settings. So after I buy my balance ball chair, and especially if I write a review of that chair, my connections may get ads telling them that I recommend the chair. Yikes! As a businesswoman, this frightens me even more than having Jockey underwear ads pop up in my browser. I do *not* want to use my position of respect (dare I say influence?) to sell products unrelated to my field. How obnoxious! And to make matters worse, Google won’t even give me a piece of the pie if my influence leads to a sale (yes I am mercenary too). Thankfully, there is a way to opt out. But insidiously, I received no announcement from Google warning me about this change in their privacy policy. Instead, I heard about it through my networks. It will not surprise me if a petition starts circulating asking Google to have the default setting be that someone’s picture and information can NOT be used to promote products. But as of now, it’s up to me and others like me to spread the word. If you have a problem with this policy, please take the opportunity to opt out. Note: If you joined Google+ after October 15, it seems you are automatically opted out. If your account is older than that, the default is to opt you in. Beware! I may as well take this opportunity to invite you to connect with me on Google+. I happen to know that many of you have accounts, since I am already connected to you. And since I opted out of this Google+ craziness, you don’t have to worry about Brenda-endorsed Jockey ads appearing on your computer screen! Finally, if you do start getting strangely endorsed advertisements, you may want to let the alleged endorser know. That person probably wants to know how to stop the madness. Category:Social MediaBy Brenda BernsteinNovember 19, 2013 4 Comments Penelope J says: November 19, 2013 at 9:21 pm Funny, I had the same problem with Jockey underwear a year ago. Ads kept popping up when I clicked on links and blogs. All I did was check if name was capitalized or generic. Log in to Reply Patrick G says: November 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm Yep that is scary Brenda thanks for sharing the details. I recently asked Google to make some of my personal information private as it was showing up on websites that I did not give permission to. What might be even scarier is when Google forces all the millions of email users to sign up for Google+ accounts. If you do not you may face the reality of not being able to read your email. Log in to Reply donitta says: December 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm Thanks so much! My G+ account is older, so I did need to go in and opt out. I really try to limit how much of me gets out there in that fashion, so I really appreciate your warning! Log in to Reply The Essay Expert says: December 2, 2013 at 8:36 pm Youre welcome Donitta! Log in to Reply

A Brief History of Poaching in Africa

A Brief History of Poaching in Africa There has been poaching in Africa since antiquity- people hunted in areas claimed by other states or reserved for royalty, or they killed protected animals. Some of the European big game hunters who came to Africa in the 1800s were guilty of poaching and some were actually tried and found guilty by the African kings on whose land they had hunted without permission. In 1900, the new  European colonial states enacted game preservation laws that forbid most Africans from hunting. Subsequently, most forms of African hunting, including hunting for food, were officially deemed poaching. Commercial poaching was an issue in these years and a threat to animal populations, but it was not at the crisis levels seen in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The 1970s and 80s After independence in the 1950s and 60s, most African countries retained these game laws but poaching for food- or bush meat- continued, as did poaching for commercial gain. Those hunting for food present a threat to animal populations, but not on the same level as those who did so for international markets. In the 1970s and 1980s, poaching in Africa reached crisis levels. The continents elephant and rhinoceros populations in particular faced potential extinction. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species In 1973, 80 countries agreed to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (commonly known as CITES) governing the trade in endangered animals and plants. Several African animals, including rhinoceroses, were among the initially protected animals. In 1990, most African elephants were added to the list of animals that could not be traded for commercial purposes. The ban had a rapid and significant impact on ivory poaching, which rapidly declined to more manageable levels. Rhinoceros poaching, however, continued to threaten the existence of that species. Poaching and Terrorism in the 21st Century In the early 2000s, Asian demand for ivory began to rise steeply, and poaching in Africa rose again to crisis levels. The Congo Conflict  also created a perfect environment for poachers, and elephants and rhinoceroses began to be killed at dangerous levels again. Even more worryingly, militant extremist groups like Al-Shabaab began poaching to fund their terrorism. In 2013, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature estimated that 20,000 elephants were being killed annually. That number exceeds birth rates, which means that if poaching does not decline soon, elephants could be driven to extinction in the foreseeable future. Recent Anti-Poaching Efforts   In 1997, the Member Parties of the Convention CITES agreed to establish an Elephant Trade Information System for tracking illegal trafficking in ivory. In 2015, the webpage maintained by the Convention  CITES webpage reported over 10,300 cases of illegal ivory smuggling since 1989. As the database expands, it is helping guide international efforts to break up ivory smuggling operations. There are numerous other grassroots and NGO efforts to fight poaching. As part of his work with the  Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), John Kasaona oversaw a  Community-Based Natural Resource Management program in Namibia that turned  poachers into caretakers. As he argued, many of the poachers from the region in grew up in, poached for subsistence - either for food or the money their families needed to survive. By hiring these men who knew the land so well and educating them about the value of the wildlife to their communities, Kasaonas program made tremendous strides against poaching in Namibia.   International efforts to combat the sale of ivory and other African animal products in Western and Eastern countries as well as efforts to combat poaching in Africa is the only way, though, that poaching in Africa can be brought back down to sustainable levels. Sources Steinhart, Edward,  Black Poachers, White Hunters: A Social History of Hunting in Kenya  Vira, Varun,Thomas Ewing, and Jackson Miller. Out of Africa Mapping the Global Trade in Illicit Elephant Ivory, C4ADs,  (August 2014).What is CITES? Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, webpage, (Accessed: December 29, 2015).