Web Behind Walls
Misc.
6/1/2001; 1:15:27 PM 'At stake is the future and form of the Internet for millions of Americans whose access to the online world comes through the set-top portals of cable television. Instead of the multivaried pathways of the World Wide Web, these users will be provided easy access to a much smaller subset of items and options that reflect the network owner's online programming, as well as the offerings of its content partners. Dubbed "walled gardens" by supporters and skeptics alike, these new "managed-content areas" will therefore offer the illusion of online choice, while leading subscribers down well-worn paths of proprietary content and affiliated programming—in stark contrast to the great diversity of expression the Web seemed to promise in its heyday, way back in, say, 1997....

'For millions of households, therefore, the World Wide Web will be neither worldly nor wide. The real danger, of course, is that the online marketplace of ideas under cable's control will become as encumbered with gatekeepers and tollbooths as the world of cable has become.... That's just too high a price to pay for the speed and simplicity of what amounts to little more than Internet Lite. In the interests of our democracy, broadband cable companies must be held to a higher standard than that....'

Controversial Ruling on Library Filters Free Speech6/1/2001; 1:12:34 PM 'In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to the Internet. The library’s First Amendment-inspired policy was intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal officials appear poised to agree with her. 'Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city’s central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues.'An intriguing angle on the issue. Still, one wonders why "filters" are necessarily the answer. While the Internet may have been involved, the activities described in the rest of the article are already illegal... why didn't anybody ever call the police and arrest these men? Problem more-or-less solved. I'd bet a good case could be made for negligence on the part of the librarians for not taking those steps.As usual, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the new technology, but no Internet filter in the world can prevent a man from masturbating in a public place; that's for law enforcement.

Response to Request for Clarification
DVD & DeCSS
5/31/2001; 12:15:38 PM The responses to the request for clarification from the judges in the 2600 vs. MPAA case are in. You can read the response from 2600 and the response from the MPAA. I recommend reading them side-by-side and comparing the answers, as hopefully the judges will.

Commentary later... I haven't been able to read them yet.

Scott McNealy and FUD on Privacy Privacy from Companies5/29/2001; 7:57:55 PM I'm not normally prone to paranoia, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder about people like Scott McNealy. Mr. McNealy wrote another essay on privacy in the Washington Post. The quote that most raises my ire is this:' I know medical records are a hot button for a lot of people, and I agree they need to be protected. But it would be a mistake to lose sight of the real benefits of sharing information about ourselves. One of the chief benefits, to use a more routine example, is personalized service. In exchange for a little information, you can get an online experience that's more in tune with your interests and needs. I have agreed to let my car company, for instance, track my every move through GPS satellites. Some people might consider that an invasion of privacy, but I find it comforting to know that, should my air bag deploy, they know where I am and can send help.'Seriously, who would consider that a violation of privacy? Nobody cares whether you choose to allow a company to have data. The issue is whether that data can be traded away to another company without asking Scott, or whether that data could be gathered without permission, not whether Scott should or should not share the information if he choses! As this point is central to his thesis, the whole rest of the editorial is pointless.This is the third or fourth person I've seen arguing this point, and I'm beginning to smell a rat. Is there some conspiracy of common cause afoot to spread this FUD about privacy? (Scott would in fact be a special case, 'cause he just has a point to prove about his earlier famous quote, "You have no privacy. Get over it.") Why would anyone think we want to totally abolish giving information to companies? Answers welcomed.

Conspiracies of Common Cause
Glossary
5/29/2001; 7:36:12 PM Another idea I want to write on iRights so I can refer to it later, ''conspiracies of common cause'' occur when groups of people act in such a way that it may lead you to believe there is a conspiracy, when the reality is simply that they share motivation.

(Links lead to a longer explanation, which is the one I intend to link to in later conversations.)

Web form allows people to opt out of data collection Privacy from Companies5/27/2001; 4:59:30 PM 'People seeking to protect their privacy can complete a single Web form to keep major advertising companies from collecting data about their Internet browsing and shopping habits.'Under pressure to protect privacy better, the advertising industry has set up two new Web sites that let computer users refuse to have their personal data collected and profiled when they visit popular commercial Internet sites.'The article does give the website URLs at the bottom: Network Advertising Initiative and Anderson Compliance. The Network Advertising Initiative site seems to be the one with the actual opt-out functionality.I was curious how you are identified to the opt-out program, so I decided to try it with Doubleclick. As I expected, all the opt-out does is set your Doubleclick cookie to the string "OPT_OUT", which means that the opt-out only applys to the current user of the current browser, and if your cookies are ever deleted the opt-out is gone. Not only is the average consumer going to have a difficult time opting out due to lack of knowlege of the process, but even for a savvy computer user like me, it's going to be virtually impossible to stay opted out, since the system is so weak.Frankly, this opt out thing is virtually useless, because even if you intend to opt out, the slightest disruption to your cookie store (changing browsers, changing computers, changing logons, changing profiles), and you are once again not opted out. This doesn't even rate an A for effort; this is as pathetic as possible.

Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules
Surveillance and Privacy from Government
5/27/2001; 4:42:33 PM 'Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed Friday.

'The Council of Europe, a 43-state human rights watchdog, has amended the text to ensure police respect privacy rights when they follow digital trails to fight online crimes such as hacking, spreading viruses, using stolen credit card numbers or defrauding banks.'

FTC blesses Amazon's privacy sleight-of-hand Privacy from Companies5/27/2001; 4:41:57 PM 'At issue was the company's sudden decision to cease allowing customers to opt out of having their personal details shared with marketing outfits and Amazon partners. Previously, customers could opt out by sending a blank e-mail message to 'never@amazon.com'.'The word 'never', the December petition reasoned, gave customers a reasonable expectation that their opt-out decision would be honored permanently. 'The FTC reply, dated 24 May by Commissioner Jodie Bernstein, regards this as a lot of theoretical nonsense.'I'd like to ditto the Reg's spin on the issue.

Two RIAA Lawsuits for the Price of One Music & MP35/25/2001; 5:02:14 PM First up this week was Aimster, being sued for copyright infringement. Aimster is a clever little service that piggy-backs on Instant Messaging and allows people to exchange files securely and easily, and of course music is one of its most common uses. Aimster has a page where you can find out what Aimster is.Next up is Launch, which allows you to tell the service what music you like, and rate what it sends you, so it tends to start sending you more music you like and less you dislike. RIAA is suing Launch for contract violation.Launch has the legal licenses to play music, so we're not talking about a rogue service. The lawsuit revolves around the level of control that Launch grants its users. According to the terms of the music licenses RIAA grants, the user cannot control the songs that are coming up on the station. (See many more of the rules at this help page, from Live365.com.) 'The music lobbyist alleges that Launch's licenses with Universal, Sony, BMG and EMI do not allow for the level of interactivity and customization offered by LaunchCast, which allows users to decide how often they want to hear particular songs. After LaunchCast users rate songs, albums and artists, the service "learns" to play the types of music the user wants to hear.'I think this is a classic action of an effective monopoly. LaunchCast is an innovative service, advancing the state of the art in music service, and striving to do it in a legal fashion. RIAA is suing, but I suspect that were any reasonably-priced license available from RIAA to broadcast the songs in this manner, LaunchCast would have aquired it. By making it impossible to aquire a license, the monopoly is effectively and totally banning innovation in the music market. This is inimical to the spirit of the intellectual property system.

Smart Alecs Misc.5/24/2001; 11:54:23 PM I don't talk about education much, but inasmuch as we have the "right" to education, the internet and computers is certainly impacting that right. ''Smart Alecs'' is a fairly even-handed article laying out the pros and the cons of computers (and by extension, the Internet) as they are affecting education. I would like to say one thing: Basically, both sides of the debate are correct. It's just that the two sides aren't talking about the same computers.The people who believe computers are harming kids say things like this:'Theodore Roszak... stated, "They (the students) feel that information is all you need, and it comes out of a computer. The fact that there?s a whole world of books in the library is vanishing. These kids are under the impression that because there are a lot of eye-popping effects on the computer, that?s superior. But the World Wide Web is a mishmash of whatever anybody wants to put up there, and what they often get is misinformation and incomplete information."...''"Computers create the lethal impression that everything about learning is supposed to be fun."'This is true... but this is the "learning game" designer's fault, not the computer's! If you treat the computer as a glorified television, or even worse, as a self-grading worksheet, then of course this hurts the child. No news here! Then again, an education founded on worksheets, memorization, and a motley collection of 'educational' films isn't exactly the epitome of education either. I remember these classes... I can't think of a worse way to "learn" history and at the same time completely miss the lessons history has to teach. One wonders how much of what Theodore sees is "computers" affecting students, and how much of it is just crappy education.There are better ways to approach computers then treating them as a glorified worksheet: '"The Internet and new technology is the most powerful tool for learning ever. Children who have access to this new communications medium will learn more effectively then those who don't," he said. "When kids are online, they're reading, analyzing, evaluating, comparing their thoughts, and telling their stories, collaborating, innovating."'Note the contrast between what "computers" are to the naysayers, and what "computers" are to the advocates. Here the computer is a tool of communication and discovery... and it can be the most flexible tool for that imaginable. Once you stipulate each side their definition of computer, they are both correct.Computers are both the most mind-expanding tools ever created and the most mind-numbing tool of mental oppression ever. The really sad part is, left to their own devices, I suspect most kids would very much prefer to use the computer in its exploration and communication mode, at least after learning enough skills to comfortably navigate in the discovery space; you have to try to ruin the experience by forcing the children to do the digitized worksheets and bleep-bloop-bloop education games, which can amuse but quickly wear out their welcome.The moral of the story is that computers, as they usually do, only amplify trends, they do not create them. If your idea of education is worksheets and filmstrips, the computers will enable you to do even more damage to your children then you could do previously, but the fault lies with your idea of education, not the computer. If your idea of education is a voyage of discovery and dialog with both peers and others who have already traveled the road, then the computers will enable you to give your students even more exposure to those experiences, but the credit is not due to the computer.I think one's attitude about computers in education serves as a sort of Rorschach test on your attitude about education in general; examining one's reasons for reacting to the issue can be enlightening.