Technology

I've already written about privacy in the context of Facebook and social networks/social media in general (What's Your Privacy Worth?), but it seems like it's time to revisit it.

Recent articles by the BBC (Facebook criticised over privacy) and Scotland's The Herald (Facebook changes are a threat to online users’ privacy, say critics) are pretty much limited to commentary by Computeractive's Tom Royal. And in an odd twist, Tom Royal doesn't appear to have written about it for Computeractive. But then, he's the deputy editor.

The last article on Computeractive magazine's site referencing Facebook is Facebook unveils new privacy options (written by Shaun Nichols) points out that there has been previous controversy and links to the Facebook Chief Privacy Officer (Chris Kelly) blog post, Improving Sharing Through Control, Simplicity and Connection. { Read more }

The New York Times article from last week, The Day Facebook Changed: Messages to Become Public by Default (Hat tip to Simon Fraser) is a must-read by anyone who uses Facebook - or any other social media. Facebook has already updated it's blog post, adding this to it:

UPDATE on June 24: We've received some questions in the comments about default privacy settings for this beta. Nothing has changed with your default privacy settings. The beta is only open to people who already chose to set their profile and status privacy to "Everyone." For those people, the default for sharing from the Publisher will be the same. If you have your default privacy set to anything else—such as "Friends and Networks" or "Friends Only"—you are not part of this beta.

But the cat is out of the bag. Meow. Hiss.

As the New York Times article points out, information collected from Facebook applications and Facebook itself can be sold because, in your need to complete that whacky quiz, you gave people the rights to access that information. The sound of your privacy, and the privacy of those around you, goes away with the muted sound of your mouse-click. Click.

From the NY Times article:

Best Case { Read more }

I accidentally summarized my thoughts on the digital divide in a response I sent to a few people, so I figured I'd post it publicly because it's the best way I've been able to explain it. Adapted for this post so it makes sense outside the context.

In the trenches, [advancing technology on the bleeding edge] only serves as distraction. The main problems revolve around infrastructure, infrastructural policy, international trade agreements and 'intellectual property' (copyright and patents).

The down side of advancing technology is that by the time it's implemented for the developed nations, the developing nations will be wearing the one-size-fits-none hand-me-downs as they always have because no one has really focused on the problems I mentioned above. So the cycle continues.

That's the digital divide. If you replace 'developing nation' with any disadvantaged group and replace 'developed nation' with any group at advantage, you'll get the spirit of it right.

It's all well and good to try to work on the digital divide. But it's an odd position to be in when the political entity you are associated with has policies and trade agreements that work against you. One would think that working on those policies would make sense.

When I worked in the ER, we corpsman would love when someone with a laceration came in because we loved suturing. We'd focus intently on the laceration because that's what we wanted to fix. But if the person was having a heart attack, what they needed most was CPR. So we did CPR. Unfortunately, in the real world, people tend to just want to fix the lacerations. And that makes them a part of the digital divide, whether intentionally or not.

Well, I imagine I'll be dropped from a few circles after writing that. Oh well. It's true.

Through Farcebook, I found a nice image that I wished I could share with you. You can see it here - it is especially poignant about the media hype surrounding the death of celebrities. About how the media overdoes it. About how people like myself just tune it out because it is so transparent... but we know that there's really glass there.

And then, to go to page where the image is and see it handicapped by an odd combination of LiveJournal, inability to embed and a lack of open content license... let's just say that there's a question as to the copyright of the image I saw on Farcebook. And it works against the creator of the image.

If you're not on LiveJournal, you can comment anonymously, but what's the point?

Sometimes people really limit their own work that they could be getting more credit for. And it's funny in a very sad way when they make the point of the media doing the exact opposite with content that is processed for the mainstream.

Ahh well.

When Apple advocates and, dare I write, extremists talk about how superior the Apple product line is - I typically have to agree from a technology perspective. But when the price is included, Apple breaks banks and could be seen as part of the problem with regard to the digital divide. And the arguments of Apple advocates tend to put them in the same category as the Microsoft advocates - something which should disturb. The digital Jerusalem need not be so polarized in technology use, but it is. And I'm an amused Linux user.

So when DailyTech writes Apple Makes Over $400 Profit Per 16 GB IPhone, $500 Per 32 GB Model, I laugh. In a world that Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer would be proud of ('I'll let you whitewash the fence for a few bucks'), the cost of advocating Apple becomes apparent:

...At a minimum, before shipping, R&D, etc., it appears Apple is making a whopping $422 profit on every $178 (manufacturing cost) phone sold. That incredible profit margin may be cut into a bit by the aforementioned expenses of transportation, R&D, advertising, and other costs, but likely remains quite impressive at the end of the day. Even better for Apple, it likely enjoys an even larger profit on the $699 32 GB iPhone 3G S, as the only difference is a marginally more expensive (likely $20 or less) NAND chip...

I'm not against Apple making money - far from it, I wish I owned some stock so I could cash in on the technology extremism that supports Apple. If people are willing to pay it, so be it - cash in. And let them advocate your brand at every turn. { Read more }

When I read U.S. Trade Officials Urge China to Revoke PC Rule, I thought the topic was about censorship. Apparently, at least for the U.S. Trade Officials, it's not (emphasis mine):

...Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a letter to two Chinese ministries Wednesday that the requirement, which takes effect July 1, could conflict with Beijing's World Trade Organization obligations.

Chinese students use computers installed with filtering software Green Dam-Youth Escort, at a primary school in Weifang, east China's Shandong province.
"China is putting companies in an untenable position by requiring them, with virtually no public notice, to pre-install software that appears to have broad-based censorship implications and network security issues," Mr. Locke said...

Ahh. It's not about censorship. It's about the untenable position that the businesses providing PCs to China are in. It's not about freedom of speech, or freedom of information, or any of those cliches so readily used in the context of Main Street U.S.A. It's about how hard it is to make a buck subverting all of that. I get it.

I don't like it, but I get it.

So I poked around a bit. Thankfully, Reuters - who WSJ seems to have borrowed heavily from (half of the story) - had a bit more:

..."Protecting children from inappropriate content is a legitimate objective, but this is an inappropriate means and is likely to have a broader scope," Kirk said.

"Mandating technically flawed Green Dam software and denying manufacturers and consumers freedom to select filtering software is an unnecessary and unjustified means to achieve that objective, and poses a serious barrier to trade," Kirk added... { Read more }

Few things tickle my funny bone about social media and social networks as much as a recent study. While MarketWatch doesn't actually link to the right page (and thus will be antiquated by the next blog post), here's the crux of it (regarding Fortune 100 CEOs):

-- Only two CEOs have Twitter accounts.
-- 13 CEOs have LinkedIn profiles, and of those only three have more than
10 connections.
-- 81% of CEOs don't have a personal Facebook page.
-- Three quarters of the CEOs have some kind of Wikipedia entry, but nearly
a third of those have limited or outdated information.
-- Not one Fortune 100 CEO has a blog.

The source, It's Official: Fortune 100 CEOs are Social Media Slackers, is a lot more detailed - as it should be.

Here's the slideshow: { Read more }

I don't really enjoy writing about the Amazon Kindle. I have a friend whose wife has one who swears by it, and I understand all of her points perfectly well. I told her that. And I also told her that she'll never be able to lend me a book from her Kindle. She's ok with that. I'm not. We're all good friends, so I let it go. I'd said my piece.

I looked at it. It is a nice little gadget. It's just tied down with bad policy. And as much as it irks me that Amazon.com is behind it, I know why: Publishing companies can't get their heads around the Internet. Unfortunately, even the most pristine of technological gadgets cannot and will not make those policies good. Acceptable to lone housewives with disposable income? Perhaps.

As I wrote before, I think the social networks surrounding books is of worth - of more worth than one single person. I've written caustically about fostering creativity with such devices.

And now TechDirt has Amazon Kindle DRM Strikes Again: You Don't Really Own Your eBooks. The sad thing is that the people who read that article probably already knew that. And the people who don't know that probably have no idea and will continue their mock existence of 'owning' books on their Kindles. { Read more }