Technology & Communications

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 }

I just got done watching Clay Shirky talk about how cellphones, twitter and Facebook can make history - the video is on the left if you have about a little over 17 minutes to kill. And everything that Clay Shirky said was true. But he left out a few things that I believe are important to balance the 'social media is the best thing since swiss cheese' hypothesis.

Certainly, social media as it is implemented now allows greater potential for spreading thoughts, ideas and kittens on treadmills (watch the video). It can help cover news events and many other things - but there is also a down side to the use of such technology. For example, it has the power to misinform and misinform at a rate that is virtually unstoppable. This point was made by the article, Swine flu: Twitter's power to misinform, but it should be apparent. That it is largely unspoken does not imply that it is apparent. I'm sure that if you asked anyone who advocates social media in a manner that makes it look like the second coming of a religious figure they will admit that things can go wrong. { Read more }

Steve Nelson wrote a nice and succinct piece on those that have their Facebook status updated by Twitter. I call them squawks, as in they are annoying tweets.

The way I deal with squawking is rather simple. I hide the squawker from my feeds - in that way I don't have to deal with their Twitterese nonsense (and most of it is nonsense for those of us not in the conversation). Sure, they may have a few gems hidden in there.

But who wants to spend the time finding them?

So the right way to deal with squawking is... squelching. Squawk at your own risk; that gem in the rough or true diamond you write will not be seen if you squawk.

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.

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 }

It finally happened. I finally started using Twitter seriously - I'm KnowProSE. I won't bore you with all the senseless 'social media' hypocrisy as to why I'm doing it. It's very linear and logical as well as self serving.

I recognize that I am getting significant traffic to posts from Twitter searches. That results in more people visiting pages who, oddly enough, don't participate in discussion here - but take part in discussion there. So, since people can't be bothered to comment here - I read what they have to say there. It's a source of writing material. It's also a source of revenue since more people visiting the site increases the potential for more revenue.

Did I sell out to the Twitter monster? I can't help but feel a little dirty that I did, but I also don't feel I had much of a choice in the matter.

I hate having to play these games because I tend to be good at them. And that takes a lot of the fun out of them.