broadstuff

Copyright holders have long preferred the term "Piracy" to describe the people who use their content without paying, but now they are getting nervous as its too exciting...:

......with its suggestions of theft, destruction, and violence. The "pirates" have now co-opted the term, adopting it with gusto and hoisting the Jolly Roger across the Internet (The Pirate Bay being the most famous example).

Some of those concerned about online copyright infringement now realize that they may have created a monster by using the term "piracy." This week, at the unveiling of a new study for the International Chamber of Commerce which argued that 1.2 million jobs could be lost in Europe as a result of copyright infringement by 2015, the head of the International Actors' Federation lamented the term.

"We should change the word piracy," she said at a press conference. "To me, piracy is something adventurous, it makes you think about Johnny Depp. We all want to be a bit like Johnny Depp. But we're talking about a criminal act. We're talking about making it impossible to make a living from what you do."

Translation: we should have chosen a less-sexy term.

Thats from Arrrrs Technica by the way

James Murdoch is leading the charge in rebranding it as (Online) Shoplifting:

Rupert Murdoch's son James did his part to redefine the sexy "pirates" as common thieves and nothing more. "There is no difference with going into a store and stealing Pringles or a handbag and taking this stuff,"

The irony of the Rightsholding media industry having spent billions creating a great brand image for its nemesis is too amusing. Yo Ho Ho.......

No sooner do Toyota have an unexplained bug in their cars acceleration, than we get this classic from Wired:

More than 100 drivers in Austin, Texas found their cars disabled or the horns honking out of control, after an intruder ran amok in a web-based vehicle-immobilization system normally used to get the attention of consumers delinquent in their auto payments.

Police with Austin’s High Tech Crime Unit on Wednesday arrested 20-year-old Omar Ramos-Lopez, a former Texas Auto Center employee who was laid off last month, and allegedly sought revenge by bricking the cars sold from the dealership’s four Austin-area lots.

“We initially dismissed it as mechanical failure,” says Texas Auto Center manager Martin Garcia. “We started having a rash of up to a hundred customers at one time complaining. Some customers complained of the horns going off in the middle of the night. The only option they had was to remove the battery.”

This illustrates another of the downsides of simple mass interconnectness without robust security and risk mitigation systems (a similar example is computer trading systems that go into a downward sell spiral).

I recall reading a Sci Fi story many years ago (70's) about a "wired" world in which a country guy with an old petrol engined, non computerised car drives into town and is nearly killed by enraged townies who se him as eco-unfriendly, but then something goes wrong with The Grid in a levee flood and all their electric cars stop with them stuck inside, and they get drowned.

The dream is to hook up all cars so they can speed seamlessly along and optimise traffic flows. The reality, unless systems are very secure and resilient, will be massive pile ups and carnage.

It does seem like online privacy is starting to hit the big time. We got it wrong, thinking that 2009 would be the year it really hit home, but we were a year early. But now everyone is trying to get More Private Then Thou - see Google Chrome's attempts:

Google just launched a new stable version of Google Chrome, the company's increasingly popular browser, which introduces a number of new features and more advanced privacy controls. Chrome will now automatically detect the language of any site you surf to and offer you to translate the text for you. In addition, Google also added granular privacy controls to Chrome that allow you to turn off cookies and JavaScript on a site-by-site basis. For now, these new features are only available in the Windows version of Chrome.

But Google (and Facebook) are probably past the point of believability....PC World:

Several major U.S. Internet companies, including Google and Facebook, need to "step up" and better protect consumer privacy or face tougher penalties from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, a commissioner said Wednesday.

And then there is this.....Twitter in its new "don't be evil" mode is getting the Security bug:

On Tuesday, Twitter added computer security veteran Bob Lord to the company's expanding employee roster as the manager of network and infrastructure security, bringing with him 20 years of experience focused on electronic security systems at large companies, most recently including Red Hat, AOL and Netscape. Highlights in Lord's background include his building security and encryption features into the Netscape browser, iPlanet servers (an alliance with Sun and Netscape) and the AOL Communicator product, which also included Mail, Address Book, Instant Messenger and Calendar. Since leaving AOL, Bob has worked with a team of cryptography experts to add security features to many projects including FireFox, Mozilla Thunderbird and Red Hat Linux.

Problem is, its hitting the mainstream - what we were writing 2 years ago is now hitting mainstream media - New York Times:

If a stranger came up to you on the street, would you give him your name, Social Security number and e-mail address?

Probably not.

Yet people often dole out all kinds of personal information on the Internet that allows such identifying data to be deduced. Services like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr are oceans of personal minutiae — birthday greetings sent and received, school and work gossip, photos of family vacations, and movies watched.

Computer scientists and policy experts say that such seemingly innocuous bits of self-revelation can increasingly be collected and reassembled by computers to help create a picture of a person’s identity, sometimes down to the Social Security number.

They go on to note:

You may not disclose personal information, but your online friends and colleagues may do it for you, referring to your school or employer, gender, location and interests. Patterns of social communication, researchers say, are revealing.

“Personal privacy is no longer an individual thing,” said Harold Abelson, the computer science professor at M.I.T. “In today’s online world, what your mother told you is true, only more so: people really can judge you by your friends.”

Collected together, the pool of information about each individual can form a distinctive “social signature,” researchers say.

The power of computers to identify people from social patterns alone was demonstrated last year in a study by the same pair of researchers that cracked Netflix’s anonymous database: Vitaly Shmatikov, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Texas, and Arvind Narayanan, now a researcher at Stanford University.

By examining correlations between various online accounts, the scientists showed that they could identify more than 30 percent of the users of both Twitter, the microblogging service, and Flickr, an online photo-sharing service, even though the accounts had been stripped of identifying information like account names and e-mail addresses.

That prediction from connected data is an effect we've also noted.

And so the dance begins, as the companies whose business models rely on massive privacy violation (see above companies...) try and keep one step ahead in the dance of the seven veils that keeps the publoc from sussing them out. But it takes two to tango, and the user is getting a lot of notification about what is going on now from both the mainstream media and from New Media researchers such as dana boyd as well.

So, whose cards will be marked this year?

Agence France Presse:

SAN FRANCISCO — A study released on Wednesday indicated that the market for mobile device software programs should rocket to 17.5 billion dollars (US) within three years.

Downloads of mobile applications to handsets will leap from slightly more than seven billion in 2009 to nearly 50 billion in 2012, according to the independent study commissioned by GetJar, the world's second largest app store.

"It is easy to see how mobile apps will eclipse the traditional desktop Internet," GetJar chief executive Ilja Laurs told AFP.

"It makes perfect sense that mobile devices will kill the desktop."

Ah, another piece of cautiously optimistic research work from Planet Mobile

For the record, a rule of thumb we have found to be pretty reliable over 10 years of watching the mobile industry is to halve the prediction and double the time it takes. $25bn by 2014? I could live with that......

Network World reporting on news from Gartner:

Sixty percent of virtual servers are less secure than the physical servers they replace, the analyst firm Gartner said in new research Monday.

This state of affairs will remain true until 2012, but security should improve substantially after that point, Gartner said.

Gartner predicted that by 2015, only 30% of virtualized servers will be less secure than the physical machines they replaced.

The basis of the issue is the new layer of virtualizing middleware that is emerging to help such virtual systems operate easily. These are new pieces of software, largely untested, and 40% are developed by people who know not a lot about high end system security.

There are 5 other main risks identified (see the press release here)

- A Compromise of the Virtualization Layer Could Result in the Compromise of All Hosted Workloads

- The Lack of Visibility and Controls on Internal Virtual Networks Created for VM-to-VM

- Workloads of Different Trust Levels Are Consolidated Onto a Single Physical Server Without Sufficient Separation

- Adequate Controls on Administrative Access to the Hypervisor/VMM Layer and to Administrative Tools Are Lacking

- There Is a Potential Loss of Separation of Duties for Network and Security Controls

Quite why its going to get amazingly better in 5 years is not made clear in the press release, I would have thought there is at least 5 years of FUD and Greed in there. The report is sitting behind a $95 paywall - so here's a free opinion:

There will be a load of cowboys entering the game in the next 3 years, by 2015 there will have been some major security f*ckups, and by 2015 many customers will have been spooked - and the big players who do this stuff in their sleep (they are called Telcos and Web 1.0 Hosters) will enter the game and just integrate it all as part of their infrastructure.

It is clearly becoming traditional at SXSW to have an Interview Keynote that everyone loves to hate, a process that is affectionately known as Lacyration. This year's tag team were Havas's Umair Haque and Twitter's Ev Williams. Just see here and here for the articles - but read the comments for a more balanced view than just the Twitter faithful.

But of course, this one was all predictable, as the chart above shows. Today's competition is to "spot the middle ground". Answers on a postcard.....

Update - Umair Haque's comments over here talks about a bigger picture than you can get in 140 characters.

I'm beginning to like dana boyd No, seriously, I first came across her stuff a few years ago and found it a bit too "Social media right on" - Teen Brave New World laced liberally with Kool Aid - the sort of academic stuff Posy Simmonds would send up most wittily. But I think moving to Microsoft has been the making of her as she has started to embrace the real world outside academia and the Teen. In other words, I find myself agreeing with her more and more

SXSW this year (to me) has seen the scary trend of a vicious competition between various privacy-busting location based services for (ahem) Buzz. Thus this piece from SXSW by dana on Privacy is rather good - here are some highlights:

DEAR ERIC SCHMIDT, PRIVACY IS NOT DEAD. KTXBY.

No matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think.

Fundamentally, privacy is about having control over how information flows. It's about being able to understand the social setting in order to behave appropriately. To do so, people must trust their interpretation of the context, including the people in the room and the architecture that defines the setting. When they feel as though control has been taken away from them or when they lack the control they need to do the right thing, they scream privacy foul.

To get at the challenges around privacy, let's consider a recent privacy FAIL: Google Buzz. What the outrage around Google Buzz showed us is that people care deeply about privacy and control. Don't get me wrong - plenty of people will use the service and it will be extremely popular, but this doesn't mean Google didn’t screw up. They’re taking a hit in terms of trust, because not everyone benefited from what they did.

Hear hear. And then there is this:

THE BINARIES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

It's easy to think that "public" and "private" are binaries. We certainly build a lot of technology with this assumption. At best, we break out of this with access-control lists where we list specific people who some piece of content should be available to. And at best, we expand our notion of "private" to include everything that is not "public." But this binary logic isn't good enough for understanding what people mean when they talk about privacy. What people experience when they talk about privacy is more complicated than what can be instantiated in a byte.

To get at this, let's talk about how people experience public and private in unmediated situations. Because it's not so binary there either.

First, think about a conversation that you may have with a close friend. You may think about that conversation as private, but there is nothing stopping your friend from telling someone else what was said, except for your trust in your friend. You actually learned to trust your friend, presumably through experience.

Learning who to trust is actually quite hard. Anyone who has middle school-aged kids knows that there's inevitably a point in time when someone says something that they shouldn't have and tears are shed. It's hard to learn to really know for sure that someone will keep their word. But we don't choose not to tell people things simply because they could spill the beans. We do our best to assess the situation and act accordingly.

Quite - we have been saying for 5 years that the trust seeking systems in Real Life are far more nuanced than a few puffs of whuffie, and that online systems are still very risky as they are so crude in ability to divine intentions - especially given the economic motives of some of the major players. She sums up with:

CHANGING THE RULES

Let's think of this in terms of a second privacy FAIL: Facebook's changes in December. For those who missed it, Facebook asked users to reconsider their privacy settings. The first instantiation of the process asked users to consider various types of content and choose whether to make that content available to "Everyone" or to keep their old settings. The default new choice was "Everyone." Many users encountered this pop-up when they logged in and just clicked on through because they wanted to get to Facebook itself. In doing so, these users changed all of their settings to public, many without realizing it. When challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, Facebook proudly announced that 35% of users had altered their privacy settings when they had encountered this popup. They were proud of this because, as research has shown, very few people actually change the defaults. But this means that 65% of users changed their settings to public.

If one believes that no one cares about privacy, one might think that Facebook users consciously made their content public. But I've spent a lot of time browsing Facebook's "Everybody" feed since the privacy setting debacle in December and I don't think a lot of what I'm seeing is meant to be public. [Picture of some "public" status updates on Facebook.] So I started asking non-techy users about their privacy settings on Facebook. I ask them what they think their settings are and then ask them to look at their settings with me. I have yet to find someone whose belief matched up with their reality. That is not good news. Facebook built its name and reputation on being a closed network that enabled privacy in new ways, something that its users deeply value and STILL believe is the case. Are there Facebook users who want their content to be publicly accessible? Of course. But 65% of all Facebook users? No way.

And she concludes with Five key issues:

PRIVACY DISCONNECTS

When thinking about privacy in a digital context, there are five main things you need to know.

First, you must differentiate between PII and PEI. If you've spent any time thinking about privacy, you've probably heard of PII - "Personally Identifiable Information." All too often, we assume that when people make PII available publicly that they don't care about privacy. While some folks are deeply concerned about PII, PII isn't the whole privacy story. What many people are concerned about is PEI - "Personally Embarrassing Information." This is what they're brokering, battling over, and trying to make sense of.

Second, we're seeing an inversion of defaults when it comes to what's public and what's private. Historically, a conversation that you might have in the hallway is private by default, public through effort. It's private because no one bothers to share what's being said. The conversation may be made public if something worth spreading is said. Even though the conversation took place in a public setting, the conversation is private by default, public through effort.

Third, people regularly calculate both what they have to lose and what they have to gain when entering public situations. Having control over a situation is extremely important, but it must be weighed against the opportunities that one might have to gain a friend or have a new experience by being public. The equations people use differ depending on where they are at in their life. Most generalizably, youth focus on all that they have to gain when entering into public spaces while adults are thinking about all that they have to lose. Part of the challenge in this is figuring out where someone's at and what their expectations are.

Fourth concept. Keep in mind that people don’t always make material publicly accessible because they want the world to see it. Consider this quote from 17-year-old Bly Lauritano-Warner:

"My mom always uses the excuse about the internet being "public" when she defends herself. It's not like I do anything to be ashamed of, but a girl needs her privacy. I do online journals so I can communicate with my friends. Not so my mother could catch up on the latest gossip of my life."

Finally, I want to come back to what I keep raising briefly but not properly addressing. Just because something is publicly accessible does not mean that people want it to be publicized. Making something that is public more public is a violation of privacy.

All very good stuff and I urge you to tread the whole original. But I want to leave you with an observation of my own, which is that the people who are heading the companies espousing Public Living the most, are also ensuring their own privacy the most - to the extent that I think we are seeing the emergence of "Privacy Feudalism" - there is a risk that in the future only the rich/powerful will have privacy, life will be lived in a public bubble except for those who can live behind the gated online communities.

So, the Location Wars have begun in earnest - Facebook and Twitter have joined Google in launching location based services.

NYT on Facebook:

Starting next month, the more than 400 million Facebook users could begin seeing a new kind of status update flow through their news feed: the current locations of their friends.

Facebook plans to take the wraps off a new location-based feature in late April at f8, the company’s yearly developer conference, according to several people briefed on the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss unannounced services.

In preparation for the introduction, Facebook updated its privacy policy last November. The new policy states: “When you share your location with others or add a location to something you post, we treat that like any other content you post.”

At that time, the company also offered some foreshadowing of the new feature: “If we offer a service that supports this type of location sharing we will present you with an opt-in choice of whether you want to participate.”

The temptation to do opt-out is going to be very strong though.....on past performance it wouldn't be surprising is that "opt-in2 promise is very liberally interpreted,

Twitter too is gearing up - TechCrunch:

The service has just turned on geolocation on its website today for the first time.

While Twitter’s geolocation feature has been live through its API since last November, there was no sign of integration into the main twitter.com site until now. As you can see in the screenshot above, for tweets tagged with location, right next to the source of the tweet there is a location placemarker. When you hover over it, it turns blue, and clicking on it brings up a little Google map showing the location that tweet was sent from.

You can see these maps as overlays both on individual tweet pages, and on tweets in your main stream. In some cases, depending on how Twitter geolocation API is being used, it looks like place names are even passed through to Twitter.

Timing is of course to coincide with SXSWi, where Location startups Gowalla, Foursquae and who knows how many others are trying to get that lifegiving buzz going (Buzz - now there is another location ploy) in the biggest geekfest on the planet. SXSW lends itself to this sort of thing as thousands of hungry and thirsty (for knowledge, natch) geeks seek their networked friends for meals over the 12 or so blocks of Austin Olde Town.

What can we say that we haven't said already (just search for "location" on the blog) except be careful - Location based services play faster and looser with privacy than anything that has gone before.

Talking about Sexy New Media Startups being as poor as churchmice, here 's an example - the iconic LOLCat site is that most poverty-attracting thing, being a sexy and new media site. And it would appear its using Slave labour (or something like that) - Gawker:

Cheezburger Network might be the internet's largest "meme aggregator," according to Wired, with upwards of $4 million per year gleaned from other people's pet pictures, supplied to the company for free. But that doesn't mean the 30 or so employees share fairly in the bounty; as we reported last week, Huh has blogged about proudly offering jobs at Seattle's minimum wage of $8.55 or slightly higher, at $10.

Those low wages permeate the company, insiders and their associates tell us, with some former workers also describing worker misclassification unpaid overtime.

On the bright side, it sounds like people have fun with their co-workers, as even some detractors tell us, and one employee wrote in to say his experience at Cheezburger Network beat the pants off her/his (other?) minimum wage jobs — not exactly a high bar, but, given the state of the economy, a practical one.

Seemed like it was only right to put up an appropriate LOLCat picture then (hat tip Patrick Hadfield for the caption)

While we're on the subject, Techmeme's Mahendra Palsule pointed me towards this C:Net article arguing that the media focus on what is sexy, not a decent business (he was noting it as a part-answer to this article I wrote awhile ago). The gist of it is:

A new report by ITDatabase that examines tech coverage over the last six months from eight top business news publications raises some questions, in particular: Does the business press factor companies' revenue and profits into their tech editorial agenda?

The report shows that Apple and Google dominate, while Twitter and Facebook are far more discussed in the business press than Intel, Dell, IBM, or even HP (the largest tech company in the world).

The eight publications surveyed are: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Forbes, Fortune, BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, and USA Today. Over a period of six months, ITDatabase measured coverage by the number of times a tech company was mentioned in print and online in these publications, including blogs such as All Things Digital, which is affiliated with the Journal. (Disclosure: I am an adviser to ITDatabase.)

There is a chart in the post that shows Apple and Google getting the lions share of the publicity - its a power law graph by the looks of things - and it reminded me of a graph I saw many years ago, drawn in semi jest by a McKinsey colleague at the time, Ralph Lewinski. This curve explains the Hype Hyperbola (see the diagram above), ie the truism that sexy industries tend not to be profitable. This is typically due to one of 2 reasons:

- They are new industries, which usually tend to be unprofitable because they are giving away value to get market share (and/or have yet to find a business model)

- They are established and still sexy, in which case people will enter the market, and even work for them, for much less money than for less enjoyable industries

Which is of course why New Meedja startups are the poorest churchmice (its not a LOLcondition) of all as they fit both conditions Social Media profits (if you exclude the purchases of sites by the Dumb Money) drive the current "biggest $0 billion industry" going.

Google and Apple are exceptions in that they are both sexy and profitable and so really get the press attention. Typically they are profitable because (like old fashioned TV, which was once sexy) they have built strong barriers to entry. They are also both very powerful, especially in the Valley - the difference in coverage tone on Google Buzz between the independent bloggers and the Tech Media (including the big blogs) was quite remarkable.