"We need your help to stop online thieves."

 This surprising message from many banks to their customer base is becoming more popular as online bank robbers are getting more sophisticated, patient and dangerous. Gone are the days when marketing brochures insisted that online accounts were just as safe as traditional banking with a teller. The new message seems to be: "We're in this battle together, so can you please lend a hand?"

 USA Today's headline entitled: Banks seek customers' help to stop online thieves offered a fairly bleak assessment of current abilities to stop the bad guys - unless we all work together.

"Cyberattacks against individual online accounts have become so sophisticated and pervasive that the American Bankers Association (ABA) is now asking consumers to 'partner' with banks to keep cyberrobbers in check.

The banking industry wants consumers to monitor their online accounts for unauthorized transactions on a "continuous, almost daily, basis," says Doug Johnson, the ABA's vice president of risk-management policy. "

The article goes on to offer a scary story to illustrate the point that this has become the new normal in online banking. With 80% of US households now participating in online banking, this issue is very serious. More than that, this call to share the security load is a 90-degree turn, in my opinion. A decade ago, banks and other financial institutions insisted that the online risks were as low (or lower) than conducting your bank transactions at branch offices - with the convenience of staying at home and not waiting in line. 

So does this issue affect government? Absolutely! Here's how.

Cybersecurity experts in government have been working with our banking partners for years regarding technology and processes for securing online transactions. We attend many of the same meetings and security conferences. We work with the same vendors. The banking industry has generally been leading cybersecurity activities, and they have often offered the way forward for online government. Bottom line, we are all in the same boat as partners. 

 I have seen several respected colleagues go back and forth between these two communities, such as Greg Garcia who went from US Cyber Czar at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to a senior executive position at the Bank of America  working on identity management and cybersecurity. Other banking colleagues participate on the same panels at security and technology conferences such as RSA and GovTech South Africa.      

Beyond security community interaction, we all know that more government transactions go online every day - involving citizens, businesses and other governments. For efficiency and customer service reasons, e-government has been hot for a decade and continues to get hotter in tough budget times. This trend is only accelerating online as services ranging from tax preparation for businesses to camp ground reservations for families are placed on the Internet. These services offered are the vital backbone for government technology professionals, and the scope of this issue is rapidly expanding.

 So should governments follow the leading of banks? I predict that this will happen over time. In order to ensure the integrity of our online government processes, we will need to work end-to-end to secure online transactions. This means that consumers and providers will need to get involved. [One side note, many governments have offered end-user training for citizens, schools, businesses and more for years - such as Michigan's cybersecurity training .]

How fast will this new trend develop? What will be the next step(s)? How far will the banks go in counting on customers to help? Will government online transactions move to two factor authentication like European banks did years ago?

  I'm not sure, but I think that our colleagues at US banks will continue to show us the way - since they are in the hottest part of this cyber battle. I do think that we'll be hearing more lines like "All Aboard!" when it comes to securing online transactions. So yes, it's back to training our children and neighbors.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

How much email is too much? New survey results from Harris Interactive found that 50 emails a day may be the breaking point for employees. Other key findings include:

·         Small-business users are feeling the brunt. A staggering 94% of small-business employees said 50 emails is their limit.

·         Gender makes no difference. Men and women are equally stressed -- 94% of men and 95% of women cited the number 50.

Despite numerous studies and reports suggesting that too much email is a bad thing, is anything really changing? Not yet.

I've known for a decade that email was a critical app. What's become even clearer to me lately is that Blackberry support for executives is now the must-have (7x24x365) " Super" app. That's right, when the messaging system is down (and yes, this includes iPhones Xs, Droids, or whatever new device is coming next), no one is comfortable in the exec suite.

Nevertheless, this is the new normal. I see no helpful trends in sight. In fact, I think our challenges are increasing with newer, faster (4-G) mobile devices. (My teenage daughter wants me to up her number of IM messages on her cell phone, so the next generation isn't slowing down.)

Some staff are feeling burned out .  Almost two years ago the LA Times proclaimed that our email Inbox has become an In(sane)-box. " It happened with cigarettes. It happened with red meat. And carbs. And SUVs. And now it's happening with e-mail. The preferred communication channel of millions of Americans is no longer cool ."  Some companies even declared email bankruptcy - and started over with new accounts. 

There's no doubt that, as a society, we've come a long way from the days when Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan captivated America in the movie You've Got Mail .

In Michigan State Government, we block over 90% of incoming email from the Internet. (We've determined that these messages are either spam or contain viruses.) And yet, I still receive an average of between 100 and 200 emails every business day.    I sometimes wonder how I get anything done when I add in text messages, tweets, social networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook, phone calls and more.

Last summer, I wrote about work-life balance and some strategies to unplug on vacation, but I must admit that it has been very difficult to disconnect over the past year. (Note to self: there must be a reason why I seem to return to this subject every year right before summer vacation.) Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more time online at home and work. The number of night and weekend (work-related) contacts (or family interruptions) has certainly grown for me. A few months back, we had an email outage over one weekend in two government agencies which resulted in my weekend being blown up.

So what can we do now regarding messaging? There are plenty of helpful tips for managing email. One of Ross Mayfield's best points in Forbes is to move from a push technology (anyone can send you an email whether you want it or not) to a pull technology where you subscribe or access what you want.

My advice is to take a step back once or twice a year and examine your email and other online habits. Is your email inbox working? Are changes needed? For important contacts and trusted partners who contact you via email, establish a protocol or working pattern that allows you to work on the most important priorities first.

What about your inbox? How many emails do you receive daily? Any strategies to help others?

Please leave a comment below and share your thoughts on email at home and work.

Earlier this week I received an email from an out of state friend and respected colleague who I haven't heard from in a while. He got straight to the point. "I just discovered that I'm only three hops away on LinkedIn from one of the suspected Russian spies . But guess what, you're even closer. You're only two hops away."

 Put in the other terms, my (real life) friend was telling me that I was linked (had a connection which is similar to a "friend" on Facebook) to someone who had an online connection to one of the alleged spies. 

I immediately checked out my friend's facts. It was true. I had accepted an invitation last year to connect to a person who was in one of the security groups that I was also in. At the time, this individual wanted to make me aware of several "hot job openings" for senior executives in my field. That contact never went anywhere, but now I was kind of "guilty by association." I presume that many others are in the same boat, since the recruiter has thousands of LinkedIn connections.

This is not the first time something like this has happened to me. But the previous time, I was a bit more culpable. Once I gave an upbeat LinkedIn recommendation to a colleague that I knew well and liked as a person. This government staff member did good work and had a good reputation - until he committed a crime and went to jail. (It turned out that I didn't know him as well as I thought.) I quickly learned that I could undo (withdrawal) my online recommendation for this person, and I did so.

 As I researched "the good, the bad and the ugly of social networks" further, I found out that many HR professionals and lawyers have suggested that online recommendations are a bad idea in the first place. That is, recommendations are not recommended , for a variety of reasons. Even when there are no negative employee/boss situations that arise, some bloggers suggest that these recommendations can be seriously flawed - due to conflicts of interest. Some managers may even recommend staff so that they are more likely to leave.

So here I am on 4 th of July weekend, wondering if I should stop accepting LinkedIn invitations. Should I change my social networking habits? Should I stop connecting to other professionals online? I meet many people at conferences and often try to establish a connection with them on LinkedIn within the next month. Does this still make sense?

After more research, I've also discovered that LinkedIn has even clamped down on super connected users . Most experts say that quality matters more than quantity . And yet, I have always used LinkedIn as a good substitute for keeping track of business cards which can become out of date. Using LinkedIn, I can easily keep track of friends and colleagues that I worked with in England, back in Maryland and even former State of Michigan employees who move one.  This pattern has served me well, and best of all, my database of contacts updates itself with the latest contact information automatically.

What conclusion did I reach?  Should I fear being "guilty by association" online? Should I encourage others to stop using these social networking tools?  I've decided to march on - with a few minor modifications.

Why? If you're not guilty there is nothing to fear.  I think a consistent "middle of the road" approach still makes sense. As long as we don't go overboard with these tools, they can help us to become more productive, well-informed and (yes) connected.  They can even lead to new opportunities - like joining interesting online groups, speaking at conferences or writing for magazines.

Sure, we need to to keep an eye on how things evolve to protect our professional online reputation and our virtual integrity . But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I say keep using social networking tools like LinkedIn, when supported by company or government policies.

Meanwhile you can ask me to connect online - but I might say no or hit that archive button.

How about you? Have any stories you can share about online "friends" or "connections" gone bad?