The other night, and around four in the morning, I received another in a series of requests for me to “endorse” someone by connecting me with them via a software called LinkedIn.

For those who don’t know, LinkedIn is a kind of cyber-referencing software. It basically uses the Kevin Bacon “six degrees of separation” theory to “connect” people who might otherwise have never met.

For example, say that you’d like to meet the CEO of a major corporation. You don’t personally know this guy, but you do know a guy who might know a guy who seemingly knows him. So, you contact the highest-ranked person in the chain that you do know, and then ask him to, and in effect, “link you in”. Should he agree to this, you move a step closer to making your connection.

Theoretically.

But to me, the whole idea stinks. I say this because, and in my opinion, this “connection” is more often than not a “reach”.

Here’s why I will probably never consent to using LinkedIn:

• First of all, most of these contact requests come from people that I don't even know.
• Moreover, most of these people don’t even know me. Most likely, they just want to use me to "get to someone" whom they think I do know.
• But how can I, and in good faith, give someone I don't know unrestricted access to someone I do know --- simply because I am the common element in the equation?

This makes no sense to me.  In the world I grew up in, one earned the right to receive favors (such as references) by first either performing a favor for that other party, or, by faithfully proving yourself over time --- an example of this being “treating someone with dignity and respect over a significant period of time”.



Here is yet another reason why I don't like LinkedIn.  Let's assume that I do agree to link someone up. Consequently, and in just a matter of days, some hundreds of people now accrue --- each of them using my name in order to get to my treasured personal contacts.

So, guess what actions those contacts are likely to take?



You got it --- they are likely going to contact me, asking me to tell them all that I know about the person now soliciting them for an introduction to their treasured personal contacts (a.k.a. “the solicitor”).



But in many cases, I don’t know the solicitor.  And even if I do know him or her, where do I find the time to properly "explain" who he is and what he is all about to these good friends?



Folks, the problem with LinkedIn is that it's a flat-out bastardization of natural order.  In truth --- it’s a shortcut. 

And you regular readers all know exactly how I feel about shortcuts!



Because where I come from (that would be Brookline/Beechview/Dormont), references are earned, and not “granted.” 

Where I come from, you earn your way to your good standing in the community by exhibiting solid character traits over protracted periods of time. And here I’m talking about traits like integrity, honesty, punctuality, and reliability.

Let’s say that I agree to put “Joe Smith” on my LinkedIn list. Let’s further assume that I put him on that list purely as a result of a one-time ten-minute meeting he and I had once upon a time.

And, let’s further say that, and after adding Joe Smith to my LinkedIn list, he turns up on somebody’s police blotter.

What do I do then? Do I act like the character played by Melinda Dillon in the movie, Absence of Malice? (You’ll recall her running through her neighborhood in her bathrobe; picking up every single morning newspaper because there was an embarrassing column about her in it.)

Hardly possible in today’s world.

In the March 31st (Thursday) issue of USA Today, there is an article entitled, “Social Media Tools Used to Target Corporate Secrets.” This article talks about criminal gangs --- mostly far eastern gangs --- who use social media sites to find their way into the computer networks of both R&D firms and individuals responsible for stock portfolios.

Let me now quote directly from this article.

“Many attacks … begin with the criminals doing recognizance on Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other popular Internet services to (either) find companies to target and/or to pinpoint specific executives, researchers, analysts, and engineers to attack.

The next step is to craft a spear-phishing lure --- designed to entice a specific employee to click on a viral attachment or webpage link. (This is accomplished by) … using information gleaned during the recognizance phase (that will make) … the attachment or link seem trustworthy.”

After reading this article, I called up a friend of mine --- he is a junior partner in a Washington, D.C.-based firm that specializes in providing protection against corporate espionage. When I asked him about social media, he basically groaned.

“Ron, we simply can’t believe how stupid people are in terms of using these products. For one thing, people are broadcasting their lifestyle patterns --- regularly! For example, there is a product called Foursquare. Foursquare is used to, and in effect, “check in” with your peer group whenever you arrive somewhere (the example he gave me was of someone going to a new city and/or checking into a hotel.)

“For one thing,” my buddy continued, “you’re telling the world that you’re not at home. But even worse, you’re helping that individual learn all about your lifestyle.” In essence, “You’re giving them a playbook” on how to best deal with you.

Then, and once the criminal feels like he knows you intimately (in other words, he has studied your tendencies and patterns to the point where he and you could be best buddies) it’s time to make the kill. Again, and according to my friend, the criminal now approaches you --- his “mark.” And because the criminal seems so comfortably “familiar” to that mark (remember, he frequents the same restaurants, theaters, and neighborhoods) the mark naturally lowers his or her defenses.

The next thing you know, his or her status changes --- from “mark” to “victim.”

“Knock down their sense of fear by upgrading their sense of familiarity,” quipped my buddy, “and you’ve got them --- all courtesy of social media.”

It gets worse. Remember, the big score is getting inside their computer. And once again, this door is propped wide open as a by-product of one’s use of social media.

Once in that door, the big payoff target is intellectual property. According to the USA Today article, “Proprietary intellectual property is generally considered (to be) twice as valuable as day-to-day financial and customer data. A thriving criminal market has evolved for converting stolen trade secrets to cash. Demand (for these trade secrets) is being driven by Asian companies looking to undercut Western rivals, and/or by scam artists seeking to game stock and commodities markets.”

Simon Hunt, CTO of McAfee’s Security Division, agrees wholeheartedly. “Cyber criminals have,” he says, “(Now) shifted their focus to trade secrets and product planning documents.

Finally, and just as I said upfront, the LinkedIn reference that most people get is hardly worth the cyber dust it is written on in the first place. If someone were to reach me on LinkedIn, and I didn’t know the reference point, I would simply and politely just decline to continue the conversation.

Someday (and probably soon) LinkedIn will be replaced by the next “fad” software. Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that the 800-pound gorilla was AOL. And before that, CompuServe.

Me? I think I’ll just continue on with my good old rolodex of individuals who have earned my respect over the years --- and earned it the old-fashioned way!