A List Apart Privacy from Companies6/5/2000; 7:18:26 AM April 28, 2000: "The electronic privacy invasion points to the failure of site designers to provide compelling content, clear navigation, and a user experience memorable enough to entice repeat visits. Click-thru is more important than Content. We have opted to become Electronic Rapists."This may overstate the case a bit (not all cookies are privacy invasions!), but I think that it's more accurate then most would admit.We tend to forget what is being done to us, because it happens so slowly and each step seems so small. The proverbial frog jumps right out of boiling water but will let you slowly raise the water temperature around it until it dies. We need to look around every once in a while and notice the bubbles in the water forming around us.(That's one of the reasons I'm so against web site annotation. It's just one of the ways the heat gets turned up on web sites.)

The Real Power of Wireless
Privacy from Companies
6/5/2000; 7:18:24 AM April 26, 2000: Why don't more people think like this? "As you think about moving your company into the wireless marketing realm, think about this: If you can target others [with constant unasked-for wireless advertising], you'll probably be a target yourself. What kind of future do you want?" The ugly world that so many marketing corporations are rushing to create will be inhabited by the members of that corporation too. Why are they working so hard to make their own world a living hell?

Anonymity Threatened in Europe Surveillance and Privacy from Government6/5/2000; 7:18:22 AM April 26, 2000: "The European Parliament is weighing a proposal that would limit the use of anonymous email, saying such a requirement would enhance police surveillance of criminals."''A Dutch member of parliament, Oussama Cherribi, was quoted in January as saying that anonymous Web surfing 'should be a criminal offense, and unlimited anonymity should become a penal offense.'''

'Bizkit Bonds With Napster
Music & MP3
6/5/2000; 7:18:20 AM April 25, 2000: 'Bizkit Bonds With Napster: "Hard rock band Limp Bizkit has teamed up with controversial Internet company Napster Inc. to launch a free U.S. concert tour, and the group's singer Monday criticized fellow artists who have accused Napster of promoting music piracy."

India Eyes Cyberlaws Country Watch: India6/5/2000; 7:18:18 AM April 25, 2000: "With estimates that nearly 2 million Indian citizens will be online by 2001, the world's second-most populous country is looking at ways to regulate cyberspace." OK, so let's take a look at what Wired said about these laws:"It also deems electronic documents as legally binding and acceptable in place of paper. Checks and bills, powers of attorney, trusts, wills, and contracts of sale of immovable property, however, will not be accepted in a digital format." Interesting but I don't believe the dangers of this have been fully explored in the real world; if this takes effect India will be a testing grounds to see if it works."Computer crimes recognized under the proposed law would affect hackers, and those who are not authorized to enter a system to download data, introduce viruses, damage data or the system, block access to authorized users, or even assist another person in contravening the law." If I host a web site in America that contains information about a security vulnerability (like BugTraq) and somebody in India uses that, will I find myself on the wrong side of Indian law? And the answer is..."If passed, the law would apply to anyone in or outside of India who tampers with a computer located in India." probably yes!, I would find myself a criminal in India. Again, without details this is tough to be sure about, but I am disturbed by the trend towards the attempted extending of jurisdiction like this. Almost anything you say that's even somewhat opinionated is a violation of a law somewhere in the world... even 'civilized' countries like Britain, let alone China or Iraq.I don't like it but odds are we're looking at another international treaty to specify what's illegal and not illegal on the Internet under International law and historically speaking, that often means we lose freedoms in America to satisfy the rest of the world. Let's call it the "International Internet Freedom Restriction Organization" treaty of 2004. You heard it here first."Contrary to other Indian laws, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, additional powers have been given to the police to tackle cybercrime. Any senior police officer can enter and search any public place on suspicion without a warrant." I don't know enough about Indian law to know how strange this is by Indian standards."Senior Indian government officials, however, point to some shocking cases, arguing that there's a need to regulate the cyberjungle. They cite cases where a popular Hindi film actress was depicted nude on the Internet using altered graphics." Ummm... at least in this country when officials cite reasons to regulate the internet, they make reference to billions of dollars of commerce at stake and how We Must Save The Children, which as much as I don't like the Children Excuse I like it better then We Must Save The Celebrities.Over all, not an example I'm willing to follow, but I will be interested in their experiences with allowing digital signitures to be binding.

Jakob Nielsen's Spotlighted Links Internet/Weblog Culture6/5/2000; 7:18:15 AM April 25, 2000: April 25, 2000: "The true danger comes from allowing access services and browser software to be integrated with content services. Thought police. The one way to ensure the continued growth of the Web, freedom of speech, and democracy is to keep bit transport and Web navigation as two separate layers that are not allowed to give preferential treatment to any content services." Emphasis mine.We need to stop relegating this point to parenthetical comments and bring it out into the public and legal discourse. If we lose this battle, we will lose the entire war.

TAP Controversy: Lawrence Lessig, Round Two
Internet/Weblog Culture
6/5/2000; 7:18:13 AM April 25, 2000: TAP Controversy: Lawrence Lessig, Round Two: "But Raymond believes that no regulation is necessary here. That apparently the invisible hand will save us from networks of control. Where's the evidence? Putting aside ideology for a moment, can you point to one example in the history of the United States where owners of a telecommunications network voluntarily architected that network as open and maintained it over time as such? The Internet is not an example: It was, through the telephone network and the conditions the government placed on its birth, heavily regulated. So where else beyond the Internet?"

Dueling to Be the King of Web Content
Internet/Weblog Culture
6/5/2000; 7:18:12 AM April 25, 2000: "Even as they expand, both syndicators will face the challenge of sameness -- as in the degree of that they confer on customer sites. 'If you go to two different sports sites, they often have the exact same stories,' says Steve Outing, a columnist with trade magazine Editor & Publisher and co-founder of Content-Exchange.com, a specialized syndicator. 'As this evolves, I think there will be more need for more original content.'"

This is a problem Userland, Pita, and Blogger do not have. They have original content in spades, and a surprising amount of it is really quite good. Perhaps these companies should be actively looking around them, they may find good stuff.

Maryland governor signs UCITA UCITA6/5/2000; 7:18:10 AM April 25, 2000: "Glendening signed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) into law Tuesday. UCITA will take effect Oct. 1; as things stands now, Maryland will be the first state to enact the software licensing measure."Well, THAT'S not good.

Yahoo! vs. Free Speech Political Speech6/5/2000; 7:18:08 AM April 25, 2000: "All the big portals have rules governing the types of banner ads that can run on their pages. Some portals have specific guidelines for political advertising. Those guidelines may be good-faith efforts to set ground rules. But in some cases, they have the effect of diminishing the quantity and quality of political expression online. Yahoo!, for example, has a blanket policy prohibiting negative banner ads."I have a hard time getting upset about banning negative banner ads on Yahoo. I think that moreso then on TV, ads do reflect on the site carrying them, as there is less seperation between ad and content. This lack of seperation causes problems as advertisers abuse this fact to trick people into clicking on ads that look like operating system messages or even a normal part of the site they are viewing. Forcing Yahoo and friends to carry negative banners would directly impact the public perception of the carriers and I can't force them to do that.You know it can't be that big a deal if I can't get excited about it "smile"There are some proposed odd scenarios in the article, like "What about a banner ad that promotes an anti-candidate Web site such as NotHillary.com or gwbush.com? Would those ads be deemed 'positive' (for the site) or 'negative' (against the candidate)?" Yeah, well, who cares? Besides, just to add some confusion into the mix, if those ads are considered libelous by someone in Britain, can they sue Yahoo?