It's funny. As technologists, we're supposed to be privacy nuts. That's part of our stereotype, our schtick. We know just how vulnerable our personal data is and it scares the bejesus out of us.

But our actions certainly don't back that up. At least, not mine. I use the latest websites in my daily routine, I blog, I use twitter, flickr and just about everything else publicly. I stopped creating accounts under aliases and prefer to speak openly as "Alex Rudloff" most every where online. My reasons are fairly straight forward (anonymity brings out the worst in people), but yet there's a certain element of creepiness associated to things like facebook's beacon. I don't blog about specifics when it comes to business or work encounters or what I've been searching for on Google or buying on Amazon. Not only is it often in poor taste, in this day of profiling, I guess it's just the notion that there are certain history books best bought with cash, ya know? Privacy has become this strange, mixed up concept. We're really sensitive in some ways, but completely not in others.

I started thinking recently about the amount of data I've given about my life and my habits. I think the tides started to turn with Google making larger and larger headway into our lives. GMail was the specific catalyst, but only because its the most obvious privacy related thing. Long before GMail, Google could track our every move on the web via search and AdSense widgets on what seems like a majority of sites.

We expect things on the web to be free. At the same time, we know that very little in the world is actually free, it's just monetarily free. A web company's goal is to create something that is so valuable to you that you are willing to overlook certain questionable things, like scanning emails for relevant ads (initially seen as super creepy). I checked out GMail though, and decided that I really liked it. The ads became less important. In fact, they almost became kind of neat. Gavin and I will bounce company ideas off each other via e-mail sometimes, and on more than one occasional, Google has displayed an advertisement for a company doing the same thing that we didn't know existed. Lazy man's research.

Ultimately, I've traded an element of my privacy in exchange for a service that I find great worth in. It's not a free service, I'm just not paying for it with my wallet. My privacy is the currency.

Facebook has increasingly shown an unwillingness to put user concerns first in their thinking. They'll release something incredibly invasive and then apologize when their community freaks out. We all know how that works, the whole "it's better to apologize than ask permission" thing. All Zuck has to do is smile pretty, apologize, and scale the feature back a tiny little bit and people calm down and move on. It happened with news feed, it's happening with beacon -- but those are just the two things people noticed. What else is facebook doing with our data? Should we care, or is facebook worth the cost?

Beacon had me so freaked out that I walked through what would happen if I simply removed my account (my natural, gut reaction). The fact is, I'd lose contact with a lot of people instantly. There's no easy way for me to take my data out and apply it somewhere else. There is no friend export and there isn't anywhere suitable for me to go. I'm paying the currency because I find worth in facebook the same way I find worth in my cable company. I want the cable, I just don't want it from them. Unfortunately, I have little choice (for now).

How many people who signed up for Mint.com, a site where you add all of your financial accounts in exchange for advice on how/where to save money, are still finding value in it? Would anyone feel comfortable letting others (say, a social community) see their search terms if it meant a better search experience? Or do we just trust google with that information?

I guess the question is, at what point does something cost too much when it comes to privacy? Who are we comfortable paying with privacy, and what level of trust defines that?

I'm not sure what my answers are yet, but I'm curious to hear other folks' thoughts.

John Dvorak, who admittedly is not particularly known for his business savvy (tongue, meet cheek), has an article up on PC Magazine talking about Bubble 2.0. It's one of those articles that I think you can't help but agree with. I mean, at least amongst those of us who are somewhat rational.

There is some really cool web stuff going on these days, and the potential that was seen before is still here (the potential probably always will be). Combine that with the fact that money seems to flow from stock to real estate back to stock. We're looking at a whole lot of money flying out of real estate and a huge surge in venture capital. It's really not all that surprising on a macroeconomic level. Rich people want to take risks and keep their money in play (don't we all.)

The real "problem" is that most folks follow markets a tad after when they should. Not only is the industry filled with the usual suspects, but it quickly becomes filled with all the "outsiders," most of whom are outsiders for a reason (tongue and cheek getting along nicely). Each idea is being pitched by someone who says that they want to make you a millionaire and they're going to do it overnight. The hype grows louder and louder as each entrepreneur tries to make themselves heard, each claim becoming more ridiculous than the last. The end result is a heck of a lot of noise and companies that don't live up to their own hype. Almost always they get so caught up in the game that they lack any plan whatsoever for monetizing. People forget, rather quickly, that ideas are a dime a dozen. It's execution, implementation and corporate survival skills (stay scrappy) that seem to matter most.

When this whole "web 2.0" (I just threw up in my mouth a little) thing started, there was a ton of discussion about what it actually meant. Was it the technology? How about user generated content? What about the drastically lowered barriers to entry and a focus on profit? The fact that anyone, anywhere can create something truly incredible codejammin' in a hotel over a weekend, or in the middle of a Chicago suburb, was truly inspirational. With TechCrunch posting about which widget took multiple millions in VC every day, I guess that lowered barrier thing is no longer part of the conversation. Nor is the "you-can-be-anywhere" aspect, as our friend C.K. "I'll Never Move to L.A." Sample just packed his bags for the west coast so he can be physically closer to Calacanis's wiki (I hope Thatcher likes dry heat and traffic, suckah! ;). We've taken a completely boundless, low barrier medium, and given it geographic boundaries and a thirst for obscene valuations. I disagree with Dvorak when he suggests that a pop is coming soon, I think we're just now seeing the start of it, but yeah, the party can't possibly last forever.

The inevitable "crash" (or correction, or adjustment, or whatever happens in retaliation) will flush out the pretenders just the same as it did last time. I think the companies that will survive will be the ones who are focusing on people and not the mythical, anonymous user. Solve problems that make peoples lives easier. Think through as many revenue models as possible just in case AdSense goes away (I can haz clickfraud?). Keep costs low, grow smart, stay patient, ignore competition (and haters) and listen to the people using your product. If your competition does in fact do something that you should be aware of, you'll probably hear about it through folks' feedback anyhow.

UPDATE: Posted a quick followup.

Ryan Carson over at DropSend has been chronicling his attempts to sell his company. I admire his transparency, as an entrepreneur it's fun to read along at home. His name dropping accounts of failed acquisitions though may be breaking some sort of unspoken rule.

A commenter on TechCrunch mentioned how it should be fair game, since most companies are just interested in getting details on competition rather than making a serious acquisition offer. The cynic in me would like to agree, but I still think it may be best to turn the other cheek.

We've had both at Emurse, the serious and the not so serious. Hell, we've had a company bring in a team of engineers with notebooks to hear us describe how we do certain things. I guess we just figured if they're going to rip us off, they'll do it no matter what. You just have to be smarter and faster in the places where you can. If you're innovating and people are copying, we figure that means we're in the drivers seat.

But are faux pas and failed deals worth burning bridges with inappropriate name dropping? At least in our case, absolutely not. Everyone we've talked to has led to interesting and beneficial relationships. Even visiting the company with the note taking engineers, we found a cultural environment we could relate to and a host of intelligent thinkers.

As an entrepreneur, I'm grateful for Carson's posts. Then again, I'm not someone looking to talk to him about a possible acquisition. Actually... maybe we should... I wonder how much traffic his blog gets ;)