After closely following the news this week, two stories havebeen rolling around in my head, and although I'm not sure how theyintersect, I believe somehow they do. Like that fun game of“SixDegrees of Kevin Bacon,” there seems to be a connection betweenthe stories, but I can't quite make out what it is yet.

The impetus for my thinking started with this week's slow-motionpublic self-immolation ofRep. Anthony Weiner. When I blogged last week on the subject, I still actually believedthat someone had hacked Weiner's Twitter account. After all, ayoung, smart professional who was so obviously in the public eye,surrounded by savvy media handlers and PR advisors, would never bedumb enough to send questionable photos over a social media sitelike some drunken frat boy.

Because when it comes to social media, Weiner was doingeverything right. He was a charismatic public speakerwhose sound bites were terrific for YouTube. He had a sense ofhumor. He was engaging his constituency on Twitter and Facebook. Hemade social media communication with his followers a two-way street(although we're still finding out just how well he didthis). Unfortunately, all this intelligence was brought down by hisown hubris.

Our advice in last week's blog was drawn from theperspective that Weiner was a victim, and how social networkingusers could protect themselves from a similar fate. But now thathe's finally admitted that he's behind (or rather, in front of)those incriminating photos, it puts a whole new spin on thesituation. And as the facts unfold (there's something new everyday, including new online gal pals and the fact that his wife ispregnant), there's still a cautionary tale for insurance.

What if the blogging, tweeting CEO of one of your clientcompanies decided to “act out” and got caught? Worse, what doidiots like this do to the concept of social networking in thebusiness world? The experts say that to keep things real, weshouldn't hand off all social networking to the summer intern.If the CEO's name is on the Twitter handle or blog, he or sheshould be tweeting or blogging, or at least approving thecontent. It helps enhance the business's authenticity. But what ifthe CEO is an authentic creep–or just uses incredibly bad judgment?It happened to the Aflac duck.

It's been an uphill fight for social media proponents toconvince businesses, especially in our risk-averse industry, of theimportance of being authentic and involved in the social mediaspace. With the tug of a zipper, Weiner could be undoing allthat good work.

My conversation last week with Jennifer Smith of Lockton on howbusinesses could avoid similar problems was fascinating, but Icringed as I typed her suggestion that they “consider firewallsand/or blocking social media use during office hours.” Yes, itmay be common sense, but it's counterintuitive to the message ofinvolvement and authenticity that social media experts have beenpromoting for the last several years. And it feels like a stepbackward.

On what seems like an unrelated subject, the other developingstory that grabbed my attention this week is happening here inChicago: a rash of violent urban crime in what are traditionallysome of the safest areas of the city: the tourist meccas of Michigan Avenue andStreeterville. Thuggish teens are converging here in packsas large as 100, engaging in muggings, shoplifting and randomattacks (one victim was an independent insurance agent who fought back; the gangbangersshoulda known better!).

What's different about these crimes is that police are callingthem “flash mobs,” saying the gangs are coordinating the attacksbeforehand on Facebook and Twitter. I guess it shouldn't be asurprise; considering that just under half of all Americans have a Facebook account, itstands to reason that a few of those 128.9 million might havecriminal intentions. But it's just another example of how badapples can use the powerful tools of social networkingfor all the wrong reasons.

The takeaway from both these stories is a concern thatbusinesses worried about security and liability may begin topull back from social media–a move that could jeopardize allthe good things that this revolution has brought us.

One of my favorite eras in history is the 1920s, in part becauseso much of the technology we now take for granted was still new andevolving. The technology boom that we've experienced in just a fewyears is just as significant as the emergence ofFord's assembly line or the ubiquity of motion pictures. Let'shope that a couple of bad wieners don't ruin the cookout forthe rest of us.