Approach Summary
[{"sender": "Christina Galbraith", "recipients": ["Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>", "Picasso Overview_pdf.html", "Untitled attachment 63876.htm", "RepDef-Process-Deck_pdf.html", "Untitled attachment 63879.htm", "company-overview_pdf.html", "Untitled attachment 63882.htm"], "timestamp": "Friday, December 16 2011 06:41 PM", "subject": "Approach Summary", "body": "Attachments: \n1. Optimizing good information to push down the negative: using new content (blog, \nwebsites, press releases, public network profiles, google images, etc) and search engine \noptimization. Changing the Wikipedia profile. Notes Wikipedia below. \n2. Eliminating the bad information using prevalence and proprietary algorithms; redirecting \nthe way in which Google sequences your information (reassociating it with the positive \ncontent). This is called off-page optimization. \n3. Eliminating personal information (social sec, tel #'s, dob, addresses etc) from all public \nand private directories. \nCOMMENTS:  \nStep 2 is critical otherwise one is just bailing water from an ongoing flood of negative press. By \nrealigning the algorithms (i.e. reinforcing positive associations with your name and weakening the \nnegative associations), one almost permanently seals up the water hole or at least closes it \nsignificantly. This allows for Step 1 to be a onetime project (which will take 2 to 4 months approx.), \nwith just tweaking here and there down the road with updated content. \nBEST PEOPLE TO USE:  \nYou need people who eat, drink and sleep algorithms and search engine optimization. I've \nresearched several companies and the most skilled, discrete, award winning and comprehensive is \na company called, www.reputation.com based in Silicon Valley. See their attached docs for review. \nBelow are bulleted key points on them: \nLookup Page just creates web pages and will not solve your problem. \nI would serve as a liaison between you and Reputation. I would monitor their progress and provide \nthem with all positive content that they need. They would make sure that the content has maximum \nalgorithmic potential. You could keep your positive content simple (using you Edge.org summary \nwhich is good), or expand your content with updates on current science work and scientists. The \nbenefit of the former, is that it keeps you more anonymous. The benefit of the latter is that is \nalgorithmically associates you to a larger pool of known scientists, further pushing up positive \ncontent. My advice would be to combine the two: a simple repetitive bio summary of you but with a \nlarger list of scientists added on. But I would ask the Reputation team about this: saying that the \nmain goal is to enhance anonymity and algorithmic associations at the same time. \nWHY REPUTATION ftr  no particular order)  \n• Represents numerous fortune 500 companies \n• clients in more than 100 countries \n• based in Silicon Valley \n• Featured on CNN, WSJ, Forbes, NY Times etc \n• Undisputed world leader in online reputation management \n• Prevalence and proprietary algorithms to drive positive search results to the top. \n• Intimate knowledge of search engine optimization. \n• 200+ employees \n• Patented Internet technology \n• Partnered with: American Medical Assoc. Am Bar Assoc, Aol, etc \n• $67 million in venture capital to date. \n• CEO is Michael Fertik \nCEO and Founder \nMichael Fertik founded Reputation.com in 2006 \nwith the belief that people have the right to control \nand protect their online reputation and privacy. In \naddition to his work with Reputation.com, Michael \nholds a position on the advisory board of The Internet \nKeepsafe Coalition (iKeepSafe), a nonprofit that \nworks to protect the health and safety of youth online. \nMichael is regarded as one of the earliest pioneers of \nonline reputation management and a leading expert \non issues of online privacy. He co-authored the book \nWild West 2.0 and lectures internationally, appearing \nbefore professional and academic audiences. Michael \nalso advises school administrators and parent groups. \nPrior to founding Reputation.com, Michael clerked for \nChief Judge Danny J. Boggs of the Sixth Circuit Court \nof Appeals of the United States. He is a graduate of \nHarvard College and Harvard Law School, speaks \nseveral languages, and enjoys sailing, reading, and \nrunning. \nTIME FRAME & FEES \nTheir \"Picasso\" Tech services described in step 2, will take approx. 3 months to eliminate bad press from the \n1st and 2'd page. The whole process will take about a year to be solidified. Fees will be approx. $10k -$15k \nper month but depends on each case and costs can be kept down by providing content and selecting only \ntruly necessary services. \nWIKIPEDIA \nThis is a tough nut to crack. And I need to do more research on this. Wiki comes up first on the \nGoogle list due to its powerful domain and contains totally lopsided and damning content on you. \nBut we'll crack it. On the surface, Wiki is controlled by a morass of copyediting geeks who have \nnothing better to do than to discuss reference tags etc. It is also 'the people's' encyclopedia, \ndictated by the tyranny of the majority—so no objectivity at all. \nCurrent Strategy— 1. The Reputation group have a copyright team dedicated to balancing the \ncontent on Wikipedia and gradually sectioning the bad stuff down to sub categories in the profile. \nThey don't seem to be able to eliminate the bad though. 2. So, I think it's worth seeing how people \nlike Prince Andrew managed to create an absolutely stellar profile—or Bill Clinton for that matter. \nNo mention of his impeachment or lying to the Grand Jury. It barely touches on Lewinsky etc. 3. \nThere are also protected pages on Wiki but I need more time and research. \nWEBSITE  \nYou need to update your website immediately by adding the bio on you from The Edge if you can \nand adding a longer summary of science and scientists that you are/have worked with."}]