Disruption Tour --- Run To Survive

Facebook 'violates privacy laws'

By Maggie Shiels Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley Facebook says it plans to "set the record straight" A Canadian privacy group has filed a complaint against the social networking site Facebook accusing it of violating privacy laws. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic has listed 22 separate breaches of privacy law in its country. Clinic Director Phillipa Lawson told the BBC that, with over 7 million users in Canada, "Facebook needs to be held publicly accountable". Facebook rejects the charge, claiming some of the highest standards around. The basis of the complaint, filed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, states that Facebook collects sensitive information about its users and shares it without their permission. It goes on to say that the company does not alert users about how that information is being used and does not adequately destroy user data after accounts are closed. Minefield "Social networking online is a growing phenomenon," said Ms Lawson. "It is proving to be a tremendous tool for community-building and social change, but at the same time, a minefield of privacy invasion. "We chose to focus on Facebook because it is the most popular social networking site in Canada and because it appeals to young teens who may not appreciate the risks involved in exposing their personal details online." The 35-page action was lodged after students at the clinic analysed the company's policies and practices as part of a course this past winter and identified specific practices that appear to violate the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Pipeda). Harley Finkelstein, 24 and a Facebook user for the last three years, told the BBC: "A great percentage of Canadians using Facebook are aged between 14 and 25 and that raises vulnerability issues. "Some 14-year-old kid might not know that privacy settings exist or how to take advantage of them or appreciate the ramifications of having their private information disclosed to third parties." Industry leading controls In a statement, Facebook said: "We pride ourselves on the industry leading controls we offer users over their private information. We believe that this is an important reason that nearly 40% of Canadians on the internet use our service. "We've reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors, most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users." But Mr Finkelstein disagrees: "Our investigation found that this is not entirely true - for example, even if you select the strongest privacy settings, your information may be shared more widely if your Facebook Friends have lower privacy settings. "As well, if you add a third-party application offered on Facebook, you have no choice but to let the application developer access all your information even if they don't need it." "We're concerned that Facebook is deceiving its users," said newly signed up Facebook user Lisa Feinberg, another law student behind the complaint. "Facebook promotes itself as a social utility, but it's also involved in commercial activities like targeted advertising. Facebook users need to know that when they're signing up to Facebook, they're signing up to share their information with advertisers." Publicly accountable The Canadian Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has a year to act on the CIPPC's complaint. The commissioner's office focuses on negotiation to resolve privacy disputes, but it can seek court injunctions if they fail to resolve the issues. Ms Lawson told the BBC the clinic's reasons for going after Facebook publicly were because past issues they have tried to discuss with the company went nowhere: "We don't see the point in going down that route again. "Our experience is it gets dragged out and they might make a few changes but they are making representations about their privacy controls and they need to be held accountable. That would be difficult if we did it through private conversations." Facebook said: "We look forward to working with Commissioner Stoddart to set the record straight and will continue our ongoing efforts to educate users and the public around privacy controls on Facebook, including a brochure and video project we have completed with Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian." All suspect Facebook has been accused of crossing the line over privacy issues in the past. Earlier this year, however, the Silicon Valley start-up introduced new tools it said would let users have greater control over their privacy, such as letting only certain groups of friends see their photos and other personal information. The director of the CIPPC sees their complaint as a shot across the bows of all social networking sites. Ms Lawson told the BBC the only reason they are focusing on Facebook at the moment is because they did not have the time or resources to look at others: "They are all suspect. Facebook is the most popular site in Canada and so that is why we looked at it particular but I am hoping to be able to do an analysis of MySpace later this year."

Billboards That Look Back
By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
New technology has made it possible, using tiny cameras, to gather details about people looking at billboard ads, such as their age or gender.
Nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/business/media/31billboard.html?th&emc=th

Microsoft's Live Search Cashback Opens Questions on Commerce Data Ownership

Dana Gardner

http://www.interarbor-solutions.com/home.html

Talk is bubbling up across the blogosphere, Gillmor Gang and Techmeme daily about social graph personal information. This may be among the most important discussions and topics of our time. How the "social mesh" works out now will affect our lives and businesses for a long time. It may even impact how we define what "me" is online. We really need to get it right, ASAP.

Yet much of the talk focuses on technology, privacy, use rights and still loosely defined standard approaches to protecting user control over data. It's still murky about how the online social network services will own and control the user- and relationships-defining data inside of their social networks, including Twitter. But there's a larger set of issues that has to do with how we want technology and the Internet to affect us people, as a business, as a society, as a market of markets and as a species.

UPDATE: Many of these issues came up, especially toward the end, at Friday's Gillmor Gang with Google (GOOG) Director of Engineering David Glazer. One takeaway is that, ironically, Microsoft (MSFT) should be among Google Friend Connect's best friends.

The discussion on social graph data portability gets to a philosophical level quickly, because the ways we have codified our personal relationships to each other -- and to larger organizations or power centers -- over eons does not necessarily apply adequately to the new virtual boundaries. It's hard to know on the Web what defines the rights of the individual, the family, tribe, community, company, village, town, state, nation, civilization, race, or species. Do accepted and proven cultural patterns offline fully translate into social patterns online?

The older established "contracts" -- from Codex Hammurabi to Magna Carta to Mayflower Compact to U.S. Constitution to the User Terms of Agreement -- do not seem to get the job fully done anymore. It's not clear what I am entitled to online, whereas I'm pretty sure I know what I'm entitled to offline, and I know what to do to enforce getting what I'm entitled to offline legally, ethically and politically.

In essence, we as online users and small businesses don't have any social-order contracts with the online providers, other than what their lawyers put in the small print when you "accept" their free or paid services. And, of course, they have made available their privacy policies for all to see. So there. Click away, users galore, while they store away the user data and relationships analytics.

As a person, you only retain the right not to click (as long as you pay throughout the two-year user subscription agreement, or suffer the penalty charge for leaving). If you're lucky you'll be able to take your phone number with you if you walk, but not necessarily your email address, or your contacts, your social interactions' definitions. Most of the data about whatever you did while nestled in the rosy social bosom of their servers remains with them unless they volunteer to let it be open. So far.

Without belaboring the implications on the metaphysical scale, my point is to show that our online social interactions as currently defined and controlled place us into uncharted territory. And as with any social contracts, the implicit and explicit ramifications of where we find ourselves later on needs to taken very seriously.

We'll want the ability to back out, if the unforeseen future warrants it, without too much pain, with our open data intact. We should all want escape clauses for what we do online the next several years, just to be safe. Who you gonna call if it's not fair?

If things don't go well for the user or individual business, what could be done? Because this is about the Web, there isn't a government to lobby, a religious doctrine to fall back on, a meta data justice code of conduct, nor an established global authority to take directives from. The older forms of social contract enforcement don't have a clue. There is only the User Terms of Agreement, the codex of our time. Read it and weep.

Because this is about the Web, the early adopters basically make it up as they go and hope for the best. It's been a great ride. The service providers try and keep up with the fast-changing use patterns, and then figure out a business model that has legs. They write up more User Terms of Agreement. Startups get funded based on their ability to get some skin in the game, even without a business model. They show the investors the User Terms of Agreement, and get their rounds. More work goes into the User Agreements than into the infrastructure to keep the thing working once the clicks come.

This laissez-faire attitude has worked pretty darn well for building out the Web as an industry, thankfully. But now we're talking about more than building out the no-holds-barred Web, we're talking about social contracts... We're talking about what the user possesses from their role in building out the Web, in populating the social networks, the authoring of the blogosphere. Is there any social collective ownership or rights by the participants in the Web? Or is it only really -- in the final analysis -- owned by those who control the means of production of the services?

There's the Web, and there's the blogosphere -- are they they same? What rights does the individual, the person, the blog entity have on the commercial Web? Does the offline me possess the same social powers online? I really don't know.

What's clear is that people like Mike Arrington, Marc Cantor, Steve Gillmor, Robert Scoble and Dave Winer (among many others) want as much freedom about what they do online as what Western Civilization has endowed on them and their ancestors offline. In some circles, and some of these people, want even more social power online than what has been the norm offline. More power to them.

There is a power clash a-brewin'. The U.S. has long struggled over states rights versus federal rights. The individual has looked to both -- and pitted them against each other -- to define and protect individual rights.

But what about online? When push comes to shove, how do the individual rights assert themselves against what the services provider can perfectly legally assert? If the server farm says they own your online address book, they probably do legally (see the Use Terms). If they say they own the meta data from your click stream on their servers over the past three years, they probably do.

So far, user rights have been strictly voluntary on behalf of the providers. Some are built into agreements. The needed rising tide of online adoption patterns and essential need to generate traffic and clicks has protected users, to a point. Let's hope it continues. I hope voluntary is enough.

Folks, you should recognize that you already have a lot of power, given the fact that social networks are falling all over themselves to show how "open" they are. They fear that you can and will bolt, even if you lose some data (the first time). Data portability is recognized by the Googles and Microsofts as hugely important, shouldn't it be huge to all of us, too?

Because as we move to always-on social interactions across all we do on the Web, what we do socially online may begin to outweigh what we do socially offline. For some of us this is already true. What distinguishes us as online or offline is blurred, and I believe will grow more so and any difference will become irrelevant.

I am social, therefore I am social. It will not matter how or where. Yet online, the fabric of control over my social universe is more under the influence of the User Terms of Agreement than anything else. Will I lose any part at all of the personal freedoms won by my ancestors when I move my social activities online?

What defines any person by what they do online -- is this a business agreement based on User Terms of Agreement or something more defined by centuries-old social contracts and mores? Does freedom trump user agreements?

When would a concept like human freedom trump any user agreement, even if it is well documented in Delaware courts? Am I free to take my social graph data, that which defines me as me, with me anywhere online because it's an inalienable right? If so, I should not need any OpenSocial standards. It's self-frickin-evident! I should not need it in the User Terms of Agreement because it's long established as precedent.

But here's the rub that came to the surface this week when Microsoft crossed the Rubicon in the Web world with Live Search Cashback.

If users can and will assert that their social graph information is theirs by virtue of their culturally endowed freedom as a human, then what about their "commerce graph?" Who you are by what you buy is not too much different than who you are by whom you associate with. Is commerce social, or is being social commerce?

My social graph contains my personal meta data and my index of contacts, their context to me, and what actually defines me as a social creature. My commerce graph exists too, it's on Amazon, Walmart.com, and dozens of other vendors that know me by how I shop, learn, peruse, compare and perhaps buy. If I search as part of the shopping process then my commerce graph is on Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft (mostly on Google). I do commerce through my social activities, and I may want a social network with those I buy from and sell to.

All this user intentions and activities information is related and should not be separated. I should be able to mix and match my data regardless of the server. I reached those servers through my own device and browser, I made those clicks and punched those keys on my machine before they showed up on someone else's. I own my actions as a free human.

Microsoft is now finding ways to build out a business model via Live Search Cashback (with more to come no doubt) that takes your commerce graph and in essence, sells or barters it to the sellers of goods and services. I'm not saying this is in any way bad, or unproductive. It seems a logical outcome of all that has preceded it online. I expect others to follow suit.

But it does have me wondering. Who owns my commerce graph? Isn't it connected to my social graph? And if Microsoft can make money off of it, why can't I? Can I only make money off of my commerce graph when I use only a certain provider's services and only through its partners? If so, then it's not really my commerce graph. I'm only as free as the User Terms of Agreement say.

If my social graph is mine, and I can move and use it freely, then I surely will want the same to be true for my commerce graph (or any other user pattern graph). This is an essential unalienable right, but I think I want it in writing.

So, please, in order for any of us progeny of Western Civilization to use any of these burgeoning online services, can we have all of this freedom business spelled out clearly in the User Terms of Agreement?

Let's make it the first line item for all online agreements from now on: "Dear User, You are a human and you are free and so that also pertains to everything you do on our Web sites and services."

Until we have technical standards or neutral agencies to route and offer our control over our own use data, then we should all insist on better User Terms of Agreement, those that spell out the obvious. We are free, our data is ours, we should be able to control it.

192.com Urges Consumers To Say No To The Phonebook

 

This social media news release is available at:

http://blogit.webitpr.com/?ReleaseID=8757

 

Title:

192.com Urges Consumers To Say No To The Phonebook

 

Core Facts

• At a time when Ofcom is reviewing BT’s obligation to deliver a phonebook to every household in the UK every year, 192.com is calling for the government to impose a centralised scheme where UK citizens can opt-out of receiving a phone book much like the Mail Preference Service (MPS) setup by the Direct Marketing Association.

• The average UK household receives three printed phone books every year. That amounts to 75,000 tonnes of annual waste – enough to cover Hyde Park twice over.

• Research conducted by 192.com revealed that 4 out of 5 respondents backed an opt-in phonebook delivery system. Popular responses for the decline in popularity of phonebooks included:
  The Internet is quicker for finding information (62 per cent)
  Phonebooks are too cumbersome (56 per cent)
  Phonebooks go out of date too quickly (39 per cent)

• People were also frustrated at how difficult it is to recycle phonebooks: nearly half (49.2 per cent) of those questioned pointed out that they were not aware of any facilities for recycling phonebooks in their area. Add this annual addition to landfill to the huge environmental cost of producing, distributing and recycling the books in a time when the majority of the UK population use the Internet.

• To kick the campaign off 192.com has launched a campaign site, saynotophonebooks.com, where people will be able to sign an e-petition in favour of the proposal and join its Facebook group.

• Phonebooks typically have less than 100,000 local records: online directory enquiries search over 17.5 million phone records across the UK

• 192.com also offers free interactive mapping and aerial photography, more powerful search options and access to a much broader range of datasets. Online data can be updated on a daily basis, phonebook data can only be updated on an annual basis

• At a time when Ofcom is reviewing BT's obligation to deliver a phonebook to every household in the UK every year, 192.com is calling for the government to impose a centralised scheme where UK citizens can opt-out of receiving a phone book much like the Mail Preference Service (MPS) setup by the Direct Marketing Association.

• The average UK household receives three printed phone books every year. That amounts to 75,000 tonnes of annual waste - enough to cover Hyde Park twice over.

• Research conducted by 192.com revealed that 4 out of 5 respondents backed an opt-in phonebook delivery system. Popular responses for the decline in popularity of phonebooks included:

The Internet is quicker for finding information (62 per cent)
Phonebooks are too cumbersome (56 per cent)
Phonebooks go out of date too quickly (39 per cent)

 

• People were also frustrated at how difficult it is to recycle phonebooks: nearly half (49.2 per cent) of those questioned pointed out that they were not aware of any facilities for recycling phonebooks in their area. Add this annual addition to landfill to the huge environmental cost of producing, distributing and recycling the books in a time when the majority of the UK population use the Internet.

• To kick the campaign off 192.com has launched a campaign site, saynotophonebooks.com, where people will be able to sign an e-petition in favour of the proposal and join its Facebook group.

• Phonebooks typically have less than 100,000 local records: online directory enquiries search over 17.5 million phone records across the UK

• 192.com also offers free interactive mapping and aerial photography, more powerful search options and access to a much broader range of datasets. Online data can be updated on a daily basis, phonebook data can only be updated on an annual basis

• Stats
  • 75,000 tonnes of waste
  • Laid end to end they would stretch over half way around the world (22,500km)
  • 680,000 barrels of oil wasted in phonebook production (not including the wasted petrol used for their delivery to your doorstep)
  • 2 billion litres of water is used in the production process (not to mention the amount of water wasted in the recycling process)
  • 437 million kilowatts of energy used in the production process (again not mentioning that used in the recycling process)this equates to enough energy being produced to power 112,000 3 bedroom houses for a year

Quotes

Keith Marsden, Managing Director of 192.com says, "Given that more than 61% of households now have access to the Internet (ONS Aug 07), free online directory enquiry services are now a highly accessible alternative to printed phone books. Sites such as 192.com offer free directory enquiry searching and data nationwide including detailed maps, aerial photography and local business listings thus giving consumers a greener choice. 

Phone calls database considered http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7409593.stm

The Lib Dems called the plans an "Orwellian step too far" Ministers are to consider plans for a database of electronic information holding details of every phone call and e-mail sent in the UK, it has emerged. The plans, reported in the Times, are at an early stage and may be included in the draft Communications Bill later this year, the Home Office confirmed. A Home Office spokesman said the data was a "crucial tool" for protecting national security and preventing crime. Ministers have not seen the plans which were drawn up by Home Office officials. A Home Office spokesman said: "The Communications Data Bill will help ensure that crucial capabilities in the use of communications data for counter-terrorism and investigation of crime continue to be available. "These powers will continue to be subject to strict safeguards to ensure the right balance between privacy and protecting the public." Given the appalling track record of data loss, this state is simply not to be trusted with such private information Chris Huhne Lib Dems The spokesman said changes need to be made to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 "to ensure that public authorities can continue to obtain and have access to communications data essential for counter-terrorism and investigation of crime purposes". But the Information Commission, an independent authority set up to protect personal information, said the database "may well be a step too far" and highlighted the risk of data being lost, traded or stolen. Assistant information commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: "We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. "Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data." 'Appalling record' A number of data protection failures in recent months, including the loss of a CD carrying the personal details of every child benefit claimant, have embarrassed the government. The plans also prompted concern from political groups. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "Given [ministers'] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people's sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security than a support." Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne called the proposals "an Orwellian step too far". He said ministers had "taken leave of their senses if they think that this proposal is compatible with a free country and a free people". "Given the appalling track record of data loss, this state is simply not to be trusted with such private information," said Mr Huhne.

Mozilla CEO John Lilly Reveals More Details On Stealth Data Project

techcrunch.com

Mozilla CEO John Lilly revealed more details of their stealth Data project today, which we first reported here.

In a blog post, he says “data is one of the most important pieces to faciliate understanding (and innovation), and is also one of the most under-explored areas of the modern web.” He also says that Mozilla has two early projects that touch on the idea - Spectator and Test Pilot.

The Data idea is much broader, however. “There are worlds of information about how people use the web that are locked up and not currently shared,” he says. By simply adding optional tracking software to Firefox code, much of that data could be unleashed. Mozilla’s goals with the Data project include:

1. Collects & shares data in a way that embodies the user control & privacy options which are at Mozilla’s core.
2. Enables everyone — from individual researchers and entrepreneurs (both the social and capitalist types) to the largest organizations in the world — to take usage data, mix it up, mash it up, derive insight, and hopefully share some of that insight with others.
3. Helps move the conversation around data collection and web usage forward, to help consumers make more informed decisions.

As we said before, the project is still very early, has no name and Mozilla hasn’t “staffed it very much.” But the potential is huge. Tell them in the comments below and on Lilly’s blog how much you want this to happen.

The Overbrook Foundation vs. Direct Mail and Catalogs

http://thecatalogchroniclesblog.com/2008/05/03/the-overbrook-foundation-vs-direct-mail-and-catalogs/

So, for two days now my ears perked up when “brought to you by The Overbrook Foundation, sponsors of Catalog Choice …” was in the trailer on two different NPR programs. So I thought, well sir, let’s check this out. 

The Overbrook Foundation, located in New York City, is a family foundation established in 1948 by Frank and Helen Altschul. The Foundation took its name from Overbrook Farm, the Altschul family home in Stamford, Connecticut. Its mission is to improve the lives of people by supporting projects that protect human and civil rights, advance the self-sufficiency and well being of individuals and their communities, and conserve the natural environment.

Cool, I thought, that’s green and cozy, very politically correct, but let’s follow the money. So what’s the specific connection with Catalog Choice? I learned that Overbrook has provided $285,000 in grants directly or indirectly to “correct” the catalog and direct mail industry’s ways as follows.

ForestEthics http://www.forestethics.org/

Founded in 1994, ForestEthics is a nonprofit environmental organization with staff in Canada, the United States and Chile. The mission is to protect Endangered Forests, and to achieve that goal they have created a revolutionary new approach.

Contributions from the Overbrook Foundation in 2007 were $105,000 for Catalog Campaign and Corporate Action Program ($65,000) and the Do Not Mail Campaign ($40,000)

To learn more about these programs designed to inform and educate the catalog industry how to be environmentally friendly, visit http://forestethics.org//article.php?list=type&type=15

Overbrook also provided indirectly to Catalog Choice a $20,000 grant to Ecology Center http://www.ecologycenter.org/ for the Catalog Choice Website Development and Operations along with a grant of $160,000 in 2007 to the National Wildlife Federation. (Catalog Choice: Improving the Environmental Performance and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the North American Direct-Mail Catalog Industry).

Are Personalized Mobile Ads Evil? GigOm.com As the mobile browsing experience forces people to search on smaller screens, where will Google place all of its revenue-generating text ads? Ben Kunz in BusinessWeek writes that the rise in mobile browsing on small screens equates to less ad space for Google. I doubt very much it will mean the end of Google’s revenue stream, however. Mobile ads are both scarce and effective and as such, will only prompt Google to attach to them a luxury model. Though such luxury will have to mean more personalization — in other words, as Kunz suggests, more intense profiling and more personalized ads. Given its forays into storing medical data and its ability to search your desktop, I don’t think Google can afford to get too personal with its advertising without risking considerable backlash. But it continues to walk the line between utility and privacy without damaging either its brand or its ability to make money, so maybe Google will find a way.

Identity 'at risk' on Facebook

By Spencer Kelly Presenter, BBC Click Facebook has millions of users throughout the world Personal details of Facebook users could potentially be stolen, the BBC technology programme Click has found. The popular social networking site allows users to add a variety of applications to their profile. But a malicious program, masquerading as a harmless application, could potentially harvest personal data. Facebook says users should exercise caution when adding applications. Any programs which violate their terms will be removed, the network said. Stealing details Facebook is the darling of the moment, allowing friends to stay in touch, post photos, and share fun little games and quizzes. And it also lets you keep your details private from the rest of the world. Or at least that is the implication. How the BBC exposed Facebook security flaw We have discovered a way to steal the personal details of you and all your Facebook friends without you knowing. We made up the fictitious profile of Bob Smith. He keeps most of his details on his profile private from non-friends. While we could not get all details, what we did get, included for more of the article click here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7375772.stm

Mobile Social Networks To See Sky High Ad Revenues By 2012?

mashable.com

If you were to believe mobile social networks about their advertising predictions, they will by 2012 be raking in between $28 to $52 billion dollars in ad revenue. Given that normal online ad revenue only broke $27 billion for the first time in 2007, and with predicted drops in ad budgets due to the economic recession, the mobile predictions seem a bit hard to swallow.

Colin Gibbs of RCRWirelessNews brings us these predictions from Informa Telecoms & Media, and they may seem outrageous. They do to me, anyhow. Traditional online topped $27 billion globally with devices (PCs) people are more accustomed. But mobile is something that is still in a state of relative infancy in a large portion of the world. Yes, mobile handsets are everywhere, but how many places use them beyond their phone features on a regular basis? Japan is well known for their tendency to do everything from their handsets, but in countries such as the United States, you might see us doing simple checks for sports scores or the weather; intensive, fully- interactive browsing is not quite the norm. Yet.

The iPhone has changed this somewhat, and with the 3G model expected to launch soon, people may spend a bit more time doing things from their mobiles. But I have to posit a question: Will it be checking their pre-existing accounts on sites like Facebook? Or will it be going to mobile-only sites such as Buzzd? While Informa says the whole lot will boom, I think the picture is a little more complex.

Mobile networks are going to have some successes, but my feeling is that there will be fewer in operation than the current litany of traditional social networks housed in full-sized browsers. That isn’t to say some crossover will not occur. A social network that is on both the computer and the phone will of course be significantly more successful due to their ability to connect people to their one source of social information. If I’m sitting at the computer already, why should I pick up my phone to converse with friends or track their activities? Naturally, the computer, whether it be a desktop or laptop, is where I will offer my focus. However, if I’m on the go, it certainly is nice convenience to be able to check in with a site I routinely use when at my main Internet terminal.

So, for the next few years, networks with primarily desktop-based sites will logically receive a good amount of additional revenue as they release and regularly enhance feature-rich mobile applications to complement main operations. Mobile-only services may have a harder go at success. Yes, Twitter and a number of other services have grown largely due to mobile usage. But they’re still very much rooted in the traditional full-fledged browser environment. Only if they bridge that gap will the torrent of users (and, subsequently, billions of dollars) pour in.

(Image source: Mobilevenue.co.uk)