Corporate

The Larousse goes wiki

The French encyclopedia Larousse was started for over 150 years ago is joining the Internet in a big way. They are launching their own version of Wikipedia.

Since any Wikipedia user can make changes to Wikipedia it is often criticized for having an inherent potential for unreliability. The Larousse version will have free access and enable users to contribute – but not totally freely. Anonymous contributions will not be permitted, but users who want to contribute have to sign up and their names will then appear on the article they submit. In addition to this contributions, once written, become protected.

The Larousse will also begin by putting 150,000 articles from its universal encyclopaedia online, in addition to 10,000 images.

More information at The Independent.

Posted on by mklang

Defending Security by Obscurity

Almost as soon as Google launched its “Social Graph API” the discussions began. As with other innovations in the field of social networking the Google social graph will be a potential new threat to privacy – and like everything else produced by Google it will be well-packaged and presented in a non-threatening manner.

So what is the social graph and why is it important?

Basically the social graph is a way to take existing data and to use it in new ways. By analyzing the information available the social graph will present relationships between data and people online. One of the examples used in the instructional video (found here) is this:

social graph by Google

the user Brad joins twitter and searches for friends. The social graph knows that b3 belongs to Brad (maybe his blog), from the Blog the social graph knows that Bradfitz is also Brad. Bradfitz is friends with Jane274 who is also known as Jane on twitter. Since they are friends on livejournal Brad can ask Jane to be friends on twitter.

The criticism against this model is that Jane274 may accept Bradfitz on livejournal but Jane may be trying to avoid Brad on twitter – even if they are the same people. Maybe Jane is trying to avoid Brad alltogether but has failed on livejournal? Who knows? Whatever the reason Jane may be using different names to create watertight compartments of her online life. This model of security is not particularly strong but it works reasonably well and is known as security by obscurity.

Tim O’Reilly argues that the weakness or false sense of security created by security by obscurity is dangerous and therefore social graphs should be implemented. He realises people will get hurt when the obscurity is lost but considers this to be a necessary cost of evolution

It’s a lot like the evolutionary value of pain. Search creates feedback loops that allow us to learn from and modify our behavior. A false sense of security helps bad actors more than tools that make information more visible…But even here, analogies to living things are relevant. We get sick. We develop antibodies and then we recover. Or we die.

Basically it’s evolve or die to Tim.

This is OK if you are pretty sure to be among those who survive the radical treatment. But what about those who are hurt by the treatment – what about those who die? Danah Boyd at apophenia writes:

…I’m not jumping up and down at the idea of being in the camp who dies because the healthy think that infecting society with viruses to see who survives is a good idea. I’m also not so stoked to prepare for a situation where a huge chunk of society are chronically ill because of these experiments. What really bothers me is that the geeks get to make the decisions without any perspective from those who will be marginalized in the process.

The problem is that the people who will get hurt in large scale social experiments such as these are never those who are responsible in carrying them out. The costs will be carried by those who are not techie enough to defend themselves. The experts will continue to go about their lives because they will always have the ability (time, money, knowledge) to defend themselves.

Those in the position of privilege should remember that with great strength comes great responsibility. In other words those who have the ability to create systems such as these should really think about the social implications of the tools they are creating. Not as seen from their positions of privilege but from the perspective of the users who may be hurt.

Posted on by mklang

Steal This Film II

Copyright never was what it used to be and the struggle to define the purpose and limits over the protection of intellectual property (or indeed the idea of intellectual property) continues daily.

One example of the ongoing debate is an op-ed in the Swedish paper Expressen a group of Swedish politicians called for the legalization of file sharing. One of the politicians was a police officer. But this is more an example of the exception than the rule.

The real attempt to draw the lines that may limit copyright occur every day and are defined in the way in which we all collectively use our technology. The act of file sharing by an individual is, in of itself, an unimportant act. Taken collectively file sharing is a massive active form of resistance and a re-interpretation of the the general consciousness of justice, right, wrong & morality.

Another important position is taken by those who actively comment and interpret the acts of all those involved in the re-definition of copyright. An important contribution to this is the film Steal this Film II. It features scholars such as Yochai Benkler, Felix Stalder, Siva Vaidhyanathan, and Howard Rheingold and portrays file sharing and the copyright debate as a historical development in the urge to regulate the spread of information.

Over at the Industrial IT Group blog Jonny has written a very good analysis of the importance of the film. Watch the movie, read the analysis and get involved in the most interesting re-defition of law in our time. 


Posted on by mklang

Trust no-one

The question of trust is a difficult one. The decision to trust must be made taking into consideration both now and by calculating future probabilities into the equation. Unfortunately the users of the users of Hushmail, a longtime provider of encrypted web-based email made the wrong decision.

The main selling point of Hushmail was it’s encryption which would guarantee privacy and security to the user.  Hushmail markets it’s service by saying that “not even a Hushmail employee with access to our servers can read your encrypted e-mail, since each message is uniquely encoded before it leaves your computer.”

Unfortunately such promises are rarely true. In an article in Wired:

A September court document (.pdf) from a federal prosecution of alleged steroid dealers reveals the Canadian company turned over 12 CDs worth of e-mails from three Hushmail accounts, following a court order obtained through a mutual assistance treaty between the U.S. and Canada. The charging document alleges that many Chinese wholesale steroid chemical providers, underground laboratories and steroid retailers do business over Hushmail.

I have no sympathy for the drug dealers but it is important to realize that relying on free services provided by companies will never ensure a reliable infratructure – when placed under stress the private company has an obligation to make a profit, not to protect non-paying users.

Posted on by mklang

You've got to be kidding?

Consumer Law and Policy Blog has a great article on the moronic “browse-wrap” agreements, a derivation of the “shrinkwrap” licensing terms that appear inside packaged software. The Browse-wrap agreements is the terms and conditions which the company believes that they are able to enforce on anyone who happens to browse over to their website.

In fact the company Inventor-link has the following terms in there browse-wrap (“Privacy and User Agreement):

Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.

So even without visiting their website they claim that people cannot link to their site without their prior consent.

Consumer Law and Policy Blog writes:

Depending on the circumstances of the case, browse-wrap agreements may or may not be enforceable. Where a company has included a provision prohibiting fair use for purposes of criticism, however, it is hard to see how any court would enforce the agreement. Readers of a site have little opportunity to review and agree to such terms, and a reasonable consumer who had reviewed the terms would be unlikely to agree to them.

Attempting to control linking is not a new phenomena. Back in 2001 KPMG attempted to intimidate the owner of a website and prevent him from linking to the KPMG theme song (oh, yes!) by claiming that he had not been approved through a “Web Link Agreement”, read the story (and the cheesy song lyrics) on Wired.

The article over at Consumer Law and Policy Blog contains an interesting analysis of the situation and I recommend that everyone should read the article and take a stand to make sure that idiotic licenses (?) such as these become as worthless as the code they are written in.

Posted on by mklang

Bottled Water

Ever held a plastic bottle of water in your hand and wonder why you are drinking imported water? Or why I just paid for a plastic bottle filled with tap water? I often do. I know that there is a guilty story waiting to be uncovered but I tend to try not to think about it. I look for arguments that the water I am drinking is healthier than the soft drinks I used to prefer.

Via Boing Boing comes some of the ugly secrets in an article on Fast Company called Message in a Bottle. Some of the ugly truths we are trying to avoid hearing are:

  • Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets–$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year.
  • In the United States alone we transport 1 billion bottles of water around a week…One out of six people in the world has no dependable, safe drinking water.
  • In Fiji, a state-of-the-art factory spins out more than a million bottles a day of the hippest bottled water on the U.S. market today, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have safe, reliable drinking water.
  • You can buy a half- liter Evian for $1.35–17 ounces of water imported from France for pocket change. That water seems cheap, but only because we aren’t paying attention…If you bought and drank a bottle of Evian, you could refill that bottle once a day for 10 years, 5 months, and 21 days with San Francisco tap water before that water would cost $1.35.
  • 24% of the bottled water we buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi for our convenience.

Naturally there is a trend to counteract the bottled water industry and the water sellers are working hard to maintain that they are connected to health and purity rather than environmental decay.

It is hard to understand why people believe that water imported from another country is a healthy choice. It is strange to think that people are prepared to pay dearly for tap water in a plastic bottle.

There are other issues such as the waste left behind, the health effects of the plastic traces in the water, the transport costs on the environment and the privatization of water…

This is definitely another area where we should be more critical.

Posted on by mklang

Digital Sharecropping

George Lucas is joining the Web 2.0 bandwagon and allowing fans to create mashups of Star Wars. Wow, what a guy? Impressed? Happy? Don’t be!!!

â??Star Warsâ?? fans can connect with the Force in ways theyâ??ve only imagined beginning May 25, when StarWars.com launches a completely redesigned website that empowers fans to â??mash-upâ?? their homemade videos with hundreds of scenes from â??Star Warsâ?? movies; watch hundreds of fan-made â??Star Warsâ?? videos; and interact with â??Star Warsâ?? enthusiasts from around the world like never before.

With an innovative, interactive site that allows users to navigate to multiple â??Star Warsâ?? worlds, a new video focus, and groundbreaking â??Web 2.0â?? features â?? including a unique online multi-media mixing platform from Eyespot â?? the new StarWars.com will unveil its redesigned website on May 25 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the â??Star Warsâ?? Saga.

Among the most compelling features of the newly redesigned StarWars.com is the incorporation of an online video-editing tool provided by Eyespot. It allows users to add their own video shots to more than 250 scenes and music taken from all six â??Star Warsâ?? films and create their own â??Star Warsâ?? movies to share with others.

Unfortunately the material the creative fans will create will not belong to them but will remain in the hands of George Lucas. The fan-created videos will run along with commercials profits split between Lucasfilm and Eyespot.

The idea of users being drafted, fooled, enticed into doing the work for someone else has been called digital sharecropping by Lessig. This refers to the situation where the work is carried out by poor day laborers while the landowners sit and reap the rewards of another’s creativity.

Read more about this over at the Volokh Conspiracy

Posted on by mklang

Greener Apples

No need to be cynical or pessimistic about the effect of lobby campaigns or the power of collecting people online. Greenpeace launched an environmental campaign against Appleâ??s lack of environmental policy. On 2nd May Steve Jobs published a second public letter (the first was against DRM) listing environmental hazards connected with Apple computers and the steps Apple was taking to remedy the situation.

It is generally not Appleâ??s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Appleâ??s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and theyâ??re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today weâ??re changing our policy.

This is a good first step towards taking Apple to the forefront of environmental concerns as well as its firm position as a design leader. This approach also shows that design and environmentalism are not incompatible.

Greenpeace has responded on their campaign site with the words “We are cheering!”…

It’s not everything we asked for.  Apple has declared a phase out of the worst chemicals in its product range, Brominated Fire Retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) by 2008. That beats Dell and other computer manufactures’ pledge to phase them out by 2009. Way to go Steve!

It’s nice to know that the machine of my choice has just made a little less guilty.

Posted on by mklang

Economist Against DRM

Not bad. The Economist is against DRM making bold statements in a recent article:

Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesnâ??t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.

and

While most of todayâ??s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.

Nice to see that serious media has begun to realise that rhetoric alone is not enough to legitimize DRM. Articles such as this show that media is beginning to practice journalism and report not only what is written in corporate press releases but are looking at what is happening all around them.

(via Boing Boing)

Posted on by mklang

You can't say McJob

After films and books like Supersize Me and Nickel and Dimed. Not to mention things like McLibel (documentary, book and lawsuit). It may be understandable that McDonald’s have had enough of bad publicity. So bad has the publicity become that the word McJob has now become synonymous with a badly paid shitty jobs. It’s even in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary)

The word McJob, as the OED definition makes clear, is “depreciative.” It goes on to define the term as: “An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.” It found its way into the dictionary in March 2001, 15 years after it was apparently coined by the Washington Post. (Speigel Online)

But now McDonald’s has had enough and is demanding that the word McJob be stricken from the OED.

“Dictionaries are supposed to be paragons of accuracy. And it this case, they got it completely wrong,” Walt Riker, a Mickey D’s McSpokesman complained to the Associated Press. “It’s a complete disservice and incredibly demeaning to a terrific work force and a company that’s been a jobs and opportunity machine for 50 years.” (Speigel Online)

Apparently McD is arguing that the definition is outdated and old-fashioned. That may be true but the last time I looked into a McDonald’s the people working there sure seemed to have really classic McJobs.

Posted on by mklang