Found this via Instapundit (If you haven't noticed he is a daily read for me).
I am certainly not a Huff fan Pretty much the opposite (I am not a moron Huffington Pseudo Int zombie political hack) but it is hard to criticize the model. After all I write for Google via Blogger for pretty much free.
Almost all of us do.
Hell I don't even write for the hit count fix anymore.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
14 December, 2007
05 February, 2007
Internet Privacy - correction and expansion
Contrary but good comment from Ryan on my last privacy post.
It was wrong of me to state that he defended a pervert. He was legitimately trying to identify what he and other coworkers considered a small triumph for computer privacy in the court system.
My opinion is that this is a terrible case to hold up as a victory for privacy in the court system.
I certainly should have stated it that way instead of the way I did. I am well aware that Ryan continually defends both privacy and ownership rights. That is why I love reading his blog and do on a fairly regular basis.
That is also why I got irritated by the spin I thought I saw in the post. My interpretation of that spin is that it was a good thing in principle that data that was voluntarily turned over to the government by the legitimate owner of that data was disallowed as evidence.
Obviously I disagree with that spin.
So now I am done with my correction. Time for the expansion.
In his comment Ryan pointed out that his interest in the case was based on principles not on "particulars".
Immediately prior to that argument he implied that I was too ideologically driven to wrap my mind around the complexities of the case.
"you are so wrapped up in libertarian ideology you can't help but see the federal government impinging on property rights."
Rock... Glass House...
I believe that to a large extent Ryan and Jennifer's positive opinion of the final outcome of this case was based on "principle" and not "particulars" but when cheering an ideological victory for their side of the argument they should not forget that the "particulars" in this case would have resulted in the dismissal of charges for an individual that DID commit the crime and is a possible threat to his community.
As to my mental deficiencies.
Well, I can wrap my mind around the details and complexities of the case.
Instead of using ascribed ideology to dismiss Ryans arguments lets use the actual case.
Original Opinion Here are the details
Final Opinion Here
I am uncertain if Ryan actually read the opinion, I assume he did, but this is the argument he used to defend the "principles" in the comments of his blog post.
Under the new ruling, a company could look through, copy or provide data from the computer to the government so long as someone with proper authority at the company agrees to it. So if the gov asks the IT manager and she says yes, then the search is legal. If the government asks the night watchman to do it, and she says yes, the search would be illegal.
This is akin to searching a teenager's room in a house. If a parent gives consent to law enforcement, the search is fine. If they get consent from the five year old that opened the door, that wouldn't be legal.
Unfortunately this interpretation doesn't jibe with the facts of the arguments in the case.
From the actual case:
Shortly thereafter, Michael Freeman, Frontline’s corporate
counsel, contacted Agent Kennedy and informed him that
Frontline would cooperate fully in the investigation. Freeman
indicated that the company would voluntarily turn over
Ziegler’s computer to the FBI and thus explicitly suggested
that a search warrant would be unnecessary.
The Corporate counsel expressly stated that a warrant was not necessary. The IT Administrator and the CFO both had already given permission.
This wasn't a 5 year old giving access to her sisters room. It also wasn't a night watchman. This was the IT management, CFO and Counsel.
The key initial findings of the case do revolve around the interpretation of an expectation of privacy.
Ziegler argues that “[t]he district court erred in its finding
that Ziegler did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy
in his office and computer.” He likens the workplace computer
to the desk drawer or file cabinet given Fourth Amendment
protection in cases such as O’Connor v. Ortega, 480
U.S. 709 (1987).
It all comes down to what a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy is.
These findings ultimately were never overturned.
My argument (which doesn't matter one wit in the ninth circuit) is that users should have no expectation of privacy on their work machine unless they work for a company that doesn't own or claim ownership of their machines or the data on the machines.
More importantly organizations should not be under a real or perceived obligation to request a warrant before cooperating with the government with information and data they own.
Ironically the final decisions on the case revolve around whether or not an office entry is acceptable not whether or not computer data is private so perhaps the spin was off in the first place.
Instead of holding a case like this up as a victory and paragon of emerging information privacy rights perhaps something better can be found.
It was wrong of me to state that he defended a pervert. He was legitimately trying to identify what he and other coworkers considered a small triumph for computer privacy in the court system.
My opinion is that this is a terrible case to hold up as a victory for privacy in the court system.
I certainly should have stated it that way instead of the way I did. I am well aware that Ryan continually defends both privacy and ownership rights. That is why I love reading his blog and do on a fairly regular basis.
That is also why I got irritated by the spin I thought I saw in the post. My interpretation of that spin is that it was a good thing in principle that data that was voluntarily turned over to the government by the legitimate owner of that data was disallowed as evidence.
Obviously I disagree with that spin.
So now I am done with my correction. Time for the expansion.
In his comment Ryan pointed out that his interest in the case was based on principles not on "particulars".
Immediately prior to that argument he implied that I was too ideologically driven to wrap my mind around the complexities of the case.
"you are so wrapped up in libertarian ideology you can't help but see the federal government impinging on property rights."
Rock... Glass House...
I believe that to a large extent Ryan and Jennifer's positive opinion of the final outcome of this case was based on "principle" and not "particulars" but when cheering an ideological victory for their side of the argument they should not forget that the "particulars" in this case would have resulted in the dismissal of charges for an individual that DID commit the crime and is a possible threat to his community.
As to my mental deficiencies.
Well, I can wrap my mind around the details and complexities of the case.
Instead of using ascribed ideology to dismiss Ryans arguments lets use the actual case.
Original Opinion Here are the details
Final Opinion Here
I am uncertain if Ryan actually read the opinion, I assume he did, but this is the argument he used to defend the "principles" in the comments of his blog post.
Under the new ruling, a company could look through, copy or provide data from the computer to the government so long as someone with proper authority at the company agrees to it. So if the gov asks the IT manager and she says yes, then the search is legal. If the government asks the night watchman to do it, and she says yes, the search would be illegal.
This is akin to searching a teenager's room in a house. If a parent gives consent to law enforcement, the search is fine. If they get consent from the five year old that opened the door, that wouldn't be legal.
Unfortunately this interpretation doesn't jibe with the facts of the arguments in the case.
From the actual case:
Shortly thereafter, Michael Freeman, Frontline’s corporate
counsel, contacted Agent Kennedy and informed him that
Frontline would cooperate fully in the investigation. Freeman
indicated that the company would voluntarily turn over
Ziegler’s computer to the FBI and thus explicitly suggested
that a search warrant would be unnecessary.
The Corporate counsel expressly stated that a warrant was not necessary. The IT Administrator and the CFO both had already given permission.
This wasn't a 5 year old giving access to her sisters room. It also wasn't a night watchman. This was the IT management, CFO and Counsel.
The key initial findings of the case do revolve around the interpretation of an expectation of privacy.
Ziegler argues that “[t]he district court erred in its finding
that Ziegler did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy
in his office and computer.” He likens the workplace computer
to the desk drawer or file cabinet given Fourth Amendment
protection in cases such as O’Connor v. Ortega, 480
U.S. 709 (1987).
It all comes down to what a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy is.
These findings ultimately were never overturned.
My argument (which doesn't matter one wit in the ninth circuit) is that users should have no expectation of privacy on their work machine unless they work for a company that doesn't own or claim ownership of their machines or the data on the machines.
More importantly organizations should not be under a real or perceived obligation to request a warrant before cooperating with the government with information and data they own.
Ironically the final decisions on the case revolve around whether or not an office entry is acceptable not whether or not computer data is private so perhaps the spin was off in the first place.
Instead of holding a case like this up as a victory and paragon of emerging information privacy rights perhaps something better can be found.
Internet Privacy - The real need
OK this one is probably going to chap some people off. Sorry if it does.
These are the real privacy items we should be working on and advocating instead of defending a pervert by attacking private property rights.
We have a lot of smart people out there and if we keep providing secure and difficult to trace communications we can help solve problems for people that actually have to worry about the government spying on them.
Last time I checked protesters that go to Washington aren't being dragged off and having their fingernails pulled out. If they do get arrested it is because they are damaging other peoples property or physically intimidating, threatening and spitting on people who dare to disagree with them. Hell, even then they aren't being arrested. Apparently they can stymie others rights but because they are part of the "in" Hollywood crowd their rights are more important. One visit to Kos, DemocraticUnderground, or MyDD will quickly show you that free speech rights are alive, well and unchallenged in the US even on borderline insane writings. They have done a good job at pushing the intellectually weak conformists into their camp. It is almost like watching a few dozen nearly identical goths walk by. Each of them comfortable in their (pseudo)intellectual superiority, artistic originality and nonconformism.
In Iran, China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia, ... The list goes on. People do get arrested for what they say. In many countries they get tortured and killed for criticisims and even the potential of thoughts that are mearly implied in their words let alone the outright hostility that can easily be found in the conformist camps.
But I digress into a political realm that has the possibility of loosing me half of my readers.
There is a dire need to improve privacy on the Internet in the world. What we really need to do is provide secure anonymous access to communications.
A great list of tools is here.
We also need to help people in these countries know how they can be watched and tracked with existing systems so they can avoid falling into traps.
People should know that it is trivial to track posts and browsing back to the entry point to the Internet. If the government owns the network this is even easier. Anytime you browse a site or send an email it can be tracked back.
They should know that if you want to draw their governments attention to data they are sending around, placing it in a steganographically altered image is the digital equivalent of turning on a a flashing neon "Interesting Data Here" sign.
We should teach people how to use wireless access, burst postings and mail and easily managed mac address wireless cards to help keep themselves anonymous.
We should quietly but consistently pressure organizations and companies to help defend the privacy of their customers by making policies that help them protect their own data as well as data owned by the customer. Clear data property rights will help here not only by directly protecting the customers and company but also by allowing them to leverage existing treaties to defend their (the companies) positions in draconian countries (when they have the guts to stand up). We should reject policies and EULA's that give data ownership to others than the individuals that create the data or pay for its creation. (ironic that that statement is on blogger huh)
This ownership and defense of individual intellectual property rights will also serve dividends here in the form of increased privacy from the very concerns that Wired inaccurately portended to defend.
These are the real privacy items we should be working on and advocating instead of defending a pervert by attacking private property rights.
We have a lot of smart people out there and if we keep providing secure and difficult to trace communications we can help solve problems for people that actually have to worry about the government spying on them.
Last time I checked protesters that go to Washington aren't being dragged off and having their fingernails pulled out. If they do get arrested it is because they are damaging other peoples property or physically intimidating, threatening and spitting on people who dare to disagree with them. Hell, even then they aren't being arrested. Apparently they can stymie others rights but because they are part of the "in" Hollywood crowd their rights are more important. One visit to Kos, DemocraticUnderground, or MyDD will quickly show you that free speech rights are alive, well and unchallenged in the US even on borderline insane writings. They have done a good job at pushing the intellectually weak conformists into their camp. It is almost like watching a few dozen nearly identical goths walk by. Each of them comfortable in their (pseudo)intellectual superiority, artistic originality and nonconformism.
In Iran, China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia, ... The list goes on. People do get arrested for what they say. In many countries they get tortured and killed for criticisims and even the potential of thoughts that are mearly implied in their words let alone the outright hostility that can easily be found in the conformist camps.
But I digress into a political realm that has the possibility of loosing me half of my readers.
There is a dire need to improve privacy on the Internet in the world. What we really need to do is provide secure anonymous access to communications.
A great list of tools is here.
We also need to help people in these countries know how they can be watched and tracked with existing systems so they can avoid falling into traps.
People should know that it is trivial to track posts and browsing back to the entry point to the Internet. If the government owns the network this is even easier. Anytime you browse a site or send an email it can be tracked back.
They should know that if you want to draw their governments attention to data they are sending around, placing it in a steganographically altered image is the digital equivalent of turning on a a flashing neon "Interesting Data Here" sign.
We should teach people how to use wireless access, burst postings and mail and easily managed mac address wireless cards to help keep themselves anonymous.
We should quietly but consistently pressure organizations and companies to help defend the privacy of their customers by making policies that help them protect their own data as well as data owned by the customer. Clear data property rights will help here not only by directly protecting the customers and company but also by allowing them to leverage existing treaties to defend their (the companies) positions in draconian countries (when they have the guts to stand up). We should reject policies and EULA's that give data ownership to others than the individuals that create the data or pay for its creation. (ironic that that statement is on blogger huh)
This ownership and defense of individual intellectual property rights will also serve dividends here in the form of increased privacy from the very concerns that Wired inaccurately portended to defend.
31 January, 2007
Is your work computer private?
From Wired
Uuhhh ... NO!
First of all it isn't "your" computer. It belongs to the company unless you bought it with your own money. Even if you did buy it with your own money you probably signed away (or clicked away) your privacy before you logged onto the network.
Look I am a huge Internet privacy advocate and I can't stand the stupid things that are happening to privacy on the net out there but the fact is that there is no privacy on a work machine. Even within my company I fight for some level of non interference and discretion of observation of the network uses but it is a given that the owner of the hardware also has almost total access rights to the data on it unless specifically identified otherwise. They also have an obligation to protect themselves from liability and to investigate and report possible felony's if they are made aware of them. This isn't like a lot of the other Internet privacy arguments. What the RIAA and MPAA are doing is at least unethical and in some cases probably illegal but this isn't even the same argument. This was a work machine and it was being used in an illegal act.
This isn't a "Dangerous" precedent. That is stupid. That employer has a legal obligation to protect themselves from liability. Lets go a step further - they have a legal and moral obligation to report the child porn if it was found even if the FBI hadn't asked for it.
If you want privacy on a work machine then find a job at a company that makes that their priority. Some of them are out there. If they choose to accept the liability risk and clearly communicate that then more power to them but then if they become aware of a possible crime and do nothing about it then they should be prosecuted as well. I would consider it despicable for them 9or any court) to help someone by using a rule like that to protect some pervert.
I love Wired but I am pretty irritated at the spin they gave this article. This isn't a privacy rights issue. If anything what is at issue is the rights of an organization to protect themselves from a felon of an employee. To present it as a privacy rights issue dilutes the legitimate privacy rights arguments by associating them with faulty logic and moral filth.
Grow up guys.
Update:
A good Comment by Scott:
I think you have misunderstood the "rights issue" that Wired points to. The concern is not whether your employer has a right to monitor your computer usage on a work computer, but whether the police have a right to search your work computer without a warrant. The Ninth Circuit's original ruling stated that since the employee in question had no expectation of privacy on a work computer, the FBI had a right to search it with or without a warrant. Surely you can see the privacy rights concerns present for both employer and employee if such a ruling were maintained.
My Response:
In short they do have the right to search your work computer if the employer lets them. Saying that the decision protects the employer is disingenuous.
In the case the police (FBI actually) asked the company to provide access to the computer. If the company had chosen to say "no we want a warrant" then that was their right. Instead they choose to say fine here is the computer. (as they should unless prevented by their own policies) They key here is that (as far as I read) the employer never asked for a warrant. It was their choice and right whether to ask for one or not.
Their choice should not be used to protect an individual who was using their property for a felony.
Let me put it this way.
If I had a store and a cop walked up to me and said "I think that Joe your janitor is storing drugs in your stores bathroom can I look?" I then have a choice. Do I ask the cop to present a warrant (and possibly implicate myself in Joe's drug use) or just say sure go ahead and look.
That is a decision for me to make and not some court. By implying that there is an expectation of protection of privacy the real precedence for the reversal of the decision is that the employers need to be asking for warrants anytime the issue might come up.
More importantly anytime law enforcement wants access to anything instead of starting by the least intrusive method and just asking they have to immediately get a warrant.That is simply wrong and places a new and prohibitive burden on both the employer and authorities.
It should be the employers choice as to whether they ask for a warrant or not. They own the system and they own the data.
This decision dilutes the property rights of the employer.
Tell me where I am wrong. If I am wrong on the details of the case then my argument falls.
Uuhhh ... NO!
First of all it isn't "your" computer. It belongs to the company unless you bought it with your own money. Even if you did buy it with your own money you probably signed away (or clicked away) your privacy before you logged onto the network.
Look I am a huge Internet privacy advocate and I can't stand the stupid things that are happening to privacy on the net out there but the fact is that there is no privacy on a work machine. Even within my company I fight for some level of non interference and discretion of observation of the network uses but it is a given that the owner of the hardware also has almost total access rights to the data on it unless specifically identified otherwise. They also have an obligation to protect themselves from liability and to investigate and report possible felony's if they are made aware of them. This isn't like a lot of the other Internet privacy arguments. What the RIAA and MPAA are doing is at least unethical and in some cases probably illegal but this isn't even the same argument. This was a work machine and it was being used in an illegal act.
This isn't a "Dangerous" precedent. That is stupid. That employer has a legal obligation to protect themselves from liability. Lets go a step further - they have a legal and moral obligation to report the child porn if it was found even if the FBI hadn't asked for it.
If you want privacy on a work machine then find a job at a company that makes that their priority. Some of them are out there. If they choose to accept the liability risk and clearly communicate that then more power to them but then if they become aware of a possible crime and do nothing about it then they should be prosecuted as well. I would consider it despicable for them 9or any court) to help someone by using a rule like that to protect some pervert.
I love Wired but I am pretty irritated at the spin they gave this article. This isn't a privacy rights issue. If anything what is at issue is the rights of an organization to protect themselves from a felon of an employee. To present it as a privacy rights issue dilutes the legitimate privacy rights arguments by associating them with faulty logic and moral filth.
Grow up guys.
Update:
A good Comment by Scott:
I think you have misunderstood the "rights issue" that Wired points to. The concern is not whether your employer has a right to monitor your computer usage on a work computer, but whether the police have a right to search your work computer without a warrant. The Ninth Circuit's original ruling stated that since the employee in question had no expectation of privacy on a work computer, the FBI had a right to search it with or without a warrant. Surely you can see the privacy rights concerns present for both employer and employee if such a ruling were maintained.
My Response:
In short they do have the right to search your work computer if the employer lets them. Saying that the decision protects the employer is disingenuous.
In the case the police (FBI actually) asked the company to provide access to the computer. If the company had chosen to say "no we want a warrant" then that was their right. Instead they choose to say fine here is the computer. (as they should unless prevented by their own policies) They key here is that (as far as I read) the employer never asked for a warrant. It was their choice and right whether to ask for one or not.
Their choice should not be used to protect an individual who was using their property for a felony.
Let me put it this way.
If I had a store and a cop walked up to me and said "I think that Joe your janitor is storing drugs in your stores bathroom can I look?" I then have a choice. Do I ask the cop to present a warrant (and possibly implicate myself in Joe's drug use) or just say sure go ahead and look.
That is a decision for me to make and not some court. By implying that there is an expectation of protection of privacy the real precedence for the reversal of the decision is that the employers need to be asking for warrants anytime the issue might come up.
More importantly anytime law enforcement wants access to anything instead of starting by the least intrusive method and just asking they have to immediately get a warrant.That is simply wrong and places a new and prohibitive burden on both the employer and authorities.
It should be the employers choice as to whether they ask for a warrant or not. They own the system and they own the data.
This decision dilutes the property rights of the employer.
Tell me where I am wrong. If I am wrong on the details of the case then my argument falls.
04 January, 2007
Amrit Rant Reply
Amrit is irritated with Blogads
Can't say I blame him. I do have the Google adware links on my top and right.
In answer to his question about what they make. My significantly sub 10K page gets almost no income from the ads. I am just hoping that I can get enough to pay for the site (actually the statcounter).
I think I have made about 5 bucks in the last two months.
I don't do some of the fancy stuff I have seen. If it is in a post of mine there is no ad revenue. I have seen some others link to Amazon items with referral codes.
I have also been a bit surprised at what Google has chosen to advertise on my site. Most of the time it is topical but a few of the ads (especially after my happily married comment last week) have been ... lets just say surprising.
I agree with the need to keep it low key though. Not that I would follow the dancing cowboy anyway.
Can't say I blame him. I do have the Google adware links on my top and right.
In answer to his question about what they make. My significantly sub 10K page gets almost no income from the ads. I am just hoping that I can get enough to pay for the site (actually the statcounter).
I think I have made about 5 bucks in the last two months.
I don't do some of the fancy stuff I have seen. If it is in a post of mine there is no ad revenue. I have seen some others link to Amazon items with referral codes.
I have also been a bit surprised at what Google has chosen to advertise on my site. Most of the time it is topical but a few of the ads (especially after my happily married comment last week) have been ... lets just say surprising.
I agree with the need to keep it low key though. Not that I would follow the dancing cowboy anyway.
28 December, 2006
Old Media Vs New Media
DBunker put an emphatic post up on Rago's recent rant against blogs.
I generally try to stay away from the political stuff.
For some reason I usually manage to tick off everyone in the discussion when I get going on them. Conservatives hate it when I go on about civil rights or separation of church and state and Liberals hate it when I talk about the free market and my thoughts on gun control. For that matter the Liberals I know typically get ticked off about my separation of church and state thoughts as well.
I do generally agree with the instapundit.
I want a world where a happily married gay couple (liberal trust cue) has a closet full of legally obtained assault weapons (conservative trust cue).
To put it in less contentious words I always vote in the manner I believe will limit the power of government over the rest of us the most. No matter who the "us" is and no matter what the parties are.
Generally I manage to hit the anti-trust cue's for pretty much every group when I get political.
Now that I have aired some of my political dirty laundry I really don't think the Rago article was a political item. It has been treated that way in half of the blog sphere. It fits the Evil Liberal MSM guy hates us meme to well to be ignored.
The fact of the matter is most of the Old Media simply doesn't get blogs. I know some of them and have talked at length with them about blogs but they simply don't understand the implications (or the possibilities).
Look to use one of Mike Murry's favorite topics - game theory - Blogging and Old Media are not in a zero sum game.
When Rago is a moron and attacks thousands of passionate and intelligent people it didn't have the effect of harming any of those people. As a matter of fact it upped the traffic for thousands of sites. It created fervour and therefore exchange of ideas.
It probably didn't hurt Rago that much either. I am sure that article got more traffic than any of the others he has written. Fellow "journalists" will commiserate and pat him on the back. Bloggers will be outraged and write at length about him often with links that many will follow imparting him with a voice he never had until then. In short everyone won this last round.
Of course if he keeps saying blatantly stupid things and believes in them sooner or later people will just ignore him. Just like David Duke and Cindy Sheehan who can only make the news by rising to new heights of idiocy and engaging with people who have clearly identified themselves as our enemies.
There is a more healthy and productive way for the two environments to engage. If you want call this Crazy Idea #6.
Full time media outlets (lets call this one Bob's Newspaper) need to assign one or more "reporters" and "editors" to the blog beat (yes I know most have already). Their job is basically one of engaging new bloggers and convincing them to feed directly (in addition to their main site) to Bob's Newpapers online site (probably via RSS).
They don't try to exercise control at all. Direct Control is what is making them fail. They just try to contain the mosh pit.
The "editor" fact checks the posts that get the most hits and feeds the data to the "Reporters". The reporters us this data along with (can't believe I am about to say this) original research to write stories about the blog posts. Everyone wins. Bob's newspaper gets a huge amount of free data and reporting while still being able to hold the worst stuff at arms length. Basically hundreds of unpaid freelancers. If the reporter trashes a blog hey that is traffic as well.
Bloggers win because, lets face the truth here, most of us are hit junkies and check our stats constantly. They link to us and our stats go up.
The best "Editors" will keep track of the facts and who is right most often. They might even start up a Fact based rating system to give kudo's points to blogs that are consistently right.
Slashdot and Digg kind of do this stuff already with a few exceptions.
In Slashdot or Digg if what is written matches a popular meme it will do well regardless whether it is correct or not and you see a lot of gaming on the system using these gut reactions. By adding in a level of accuracy incentive things get better.
In any case D-Bunker ( I have to think up an easier nick name for his pseudonym) is right in that they (the MSM [conservative trust cue here]) are missing the boat in many ways. I am just not sure he was right about Rago's blunder really missing it. If Rago is smart he could turn this into a New Coke thing. Of course judging from his responses so far he isn't that smart.
I generally try to stay away from the political stuff.
For some reason I usually manage to tick off everyone in the discussion when I get going on them. Conservatives hate it when I go on about civil rights or separation of church and state and Liberals hate it when I talk about the free market and my thoughts on gun control. For that matter the Liberals I know typically get ticked off about my separation of church and state thoughts as well.
I do generally agree with the instapundit.
I want a world where a happily married gay couple (liberal trust cue) has a closet full of legally obtained assault weapons (conservative trust cue).
To put it in less contentious words I always vote in the manner I believe will limit the power of government over the rest of us the most. No matter who the "us" is and no matter what the parties are.
Generally I manage to hit the anti-trust cue's for pretty much every group when I get political.
Now that I have aired some of my political dirty laundry I really don't think the Rago article was a political item. It has been treated that way in half of the blog sphere. It fits the Evil Liberal MSM guy hates us meme to well to be ignored.
The fact of the matter is most of the Old Media simply doesn't get blogs. I know some of them and have talked at length with them about blogs but they simply don't understand the implications (or the possibilities).
Look to use one of Mike Murry's favorite topics - game theory - Blogging and Old Media are not in a zero sum game.
When Rago is a moron and attacks thousands of passionate and intelligent people it didn't have the effect of harming any of those people. As a matter of fact it upped the traffic for thousands of sites. It created fervour and therefore exchange of ideas.
It probably didn't hurt Rago that much either. I am sure that article got more traffic than any of the others he has written. Fellow "journalists" will commiserate and pat him on the back. Bloggers will be outraged and write at length about him often with links that many will follow imparting him with a voice he never had until then. In short everyone won this last round.
Of course if he keeps saying blatantly stupid things and believes in them sooner or later people will just ignore him. Just like David Duke and Cindy Sheehan who can only make the news by rising to new heights of idiocy and engaging with people who have clearly identified themselves as our enemies.
There is a more healthy and productive way for the two environments to engage. If you want call this Crazy Idea #6.
Full time media outlets (lets call this one Bob's Newspaper) need to assign one or more "reporters" and "editors" to the blog beat (yes I know most have already). Their job is basically one of engaging new bloggers and convincing them to feed directly (in addition to their main site) to Bob's Newpapers online site (probably via RSS).
They don't try to exercise control at all. Direct Control is what is making them fail. They just try to contain the mosh pit.
The "editor" fact checks the posts that get the most hits and feeds the data to the "Reporters". The reporters us this data along with (can't believe I am about to say this) original research to write stories about the blog posts. Everyone wins. Bob's newspaper gets a huge amount of free data and reporting while still being able to hold the worst stuff at arms length. Basically hundreds of unpaid freelancers. If the reporter trashes a blog hey that is traffic as well.
Bloggers win because, lets face the truth here, most of us are hit junkies and check our stats constantly. They link to us and our stats go up.
The best "Editors" will keep track of the facts and who is right most often. They might even start up a Fact based rating system to give kudo's points to blogs that are consistently right.
Slashdot and Digg kind of do this stuff already with a few exceptions.
In Slashdot or Digg if what is written matches a popular meme it will do well regardless whether it is correct or not and you see a lot of gaming on the system using these gut reactions. By adding in a level of accuracy incentive things get better.
In any case D-Bunker ( I have to think up an easier nick name for his pseudonym) is right in that they (the MSM [conservative trust cue here]) are missing the boat in many ways. I am just not sure he was right about Rago's blunder really missing it. If Rago is smart he could turn this into a New Coke thing. Of course judging from his responses so far he isn't that smart.
25 December, 2006
Rago's Rant, Part II
So Joseph Rago doesn't think much of Blogs? Well guess what, we bloggers don't think much of his ilk either. Credentialed Journalists indeed! It would be different if these so-called Journalists actually knew something besides Journalism. In fact, I'd settle for Journalists who actually understood their own craft, never mind what the rest of the world has to offer.
Yeah, we've seen lots of hard bitten Journalists lately. We've seen ignoramuses who couldn't detect blatently photoshopped images from their "photo-journalist" bretheren. We've seen people who selectively report what world leaders say. We've seen opinion and theories reported as fact. And they wonder why people hold them in such low regard? Wake Up Mr. Rago.
Meanwhile, there are scandals of world shaking magnitude brewing all around the UN and nobody sees fit to report on it. Remember Oil for Food? What about all the interesting dirt that Claudia Rosette dug up years ago and continues to research? Has anyone seen fit to follow up on it?
We're blasted daily about reports of global warming. What we don't see are the numerous studies indicating that the consequences may not be as rapid or as dire as first thought. For example, the polar bear population study on the cover of Time? That was one study of many. It was the only study showing a decline in polar bear population. Guess which one got reported?
Sensationalism sells. That's what's wrong with the decendants of town criers. Nobody likes to yell "All's Well." It's much more fun to scream "THE EARTH IS BURNING" at the public. By the way, I do not doubt that the earth probably is warming. I merely question the hysteria that surrounds this issue: a hysteria fomented primarily by your colleagues, Mr. Rago.
As for my credentials, well, I feel I'm far more qualified to report about a SCADA system than any wordsmith who calls him/herself a Journalist. Sure enough, my description may not be as concise and my language may be rough around the edges. However I will be far more precise and I will use the correct terms. Shall I get a ghost writer to mediate this stuff, or would you prefer to read about first hand?
Let me ask a similar question: Do we need to be certified graduate with a computer science degree to write good software? Go look on Sourceforge. Yes, there are some folks who could use help writing a decently stable program. But if there weren't some really talented amateurs out there I wouldn't be typing this 'blog on an open source OS and browser.
This is also true about scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and so on. Yeah, there are lots of amateurs out there. Many do not know as much as they should. But they're learning. And so is the public. Among the literate, you'll often find that popularity is not a bad guide for who knows their stuff and who doesn't.
Wait, did I say Popularity? Well, I guess I did. It is the same gauge we use to see how well newspapers and magazines measure up. Mr. Rago, I think you need to consider the message buried deep in those unworthy 'blogs. They just might know what you do not.
You see, I think Marshall McLuhan was wrong: The medium is not the message. It's all about the information, stupid.
Yeah, we've seen lots of hard bitten Journalists lately. We've seen ignoramuses who couldn't detect blatently photoshopped images from their "photo-journalist" bretheren. We've seen people who selectively report what world leaders say. We've seen opinion and theories reported as fact. And they wonder why people hold them in such low regard? Wake Up Mr. Rago.
Meanwhile, there are scandals of world shaking magnitude brewing all around the UN and nobody sees fit to report on it. Remember Oil for Food? What about all the interesting dirt that Claudia Rosette dug up years ago and continues to research? Has anyone seen fit to follow up on it?
We're blasted daily about reports of global warming. What we don't see are the numerous studies indicating that the consequences may not be as rapid or as dire as first thought. For example, the polar bear population study on the cover of Time? That was one study of many. It was the only study showing a decline in polar bear population. Guess which one got reported?
Sensationalism sells. That's what's wrong with the decendants of town criers. Nobody likes to yell "All's Well." It's much more fun to scream "THE EARTH IS BURNING" at the public. By the way, I do not doubt that the earth probably is warming. I merely question the hysteria that surrounds this issue: a hysteria fomented primarily by your colleagues, Mr. Rago.
As for my credentials, well, I feel I'm far more qualified to report about a SCADA system than any wordsmith who calls him/herself a Journalist. Sure enough, my description may not be as concise and my language may be rough around the edges. However I will be far more precise and I will use the correct terms. Shall I get a ghost writer to mediate this stuff, or would you prefer to read about first hand?
Let me ask a similar question: Do we need to be certified graduate with a computer science degree to write good software? Go look on Sourceforge. Yes, there are some folks who could use help writing a decently stable program. But if there weren't some really talented amateurs out there I wouldn't be typing this 'blog on an open source OS and browser.
This is also true about scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and so on. Yeah, there are lots of amateurs out there. Many do not know as much as they should. But they're learning. And so is the public. Among the literate, you'll often find that popularity is not a bad guide for who knows their stuff and who doesn't.
Wait, did I say Popularity? Well, I guess I did. It is the same gauge we use to see how well newspapers and magazines measure up. Mr. Rago, I think you need to consider the message buried deep in those unworthy 'blogs. They just might know what you do not.
You see, I think Marshall McLuhan was wrong: The medium is not the message. It's all about the information, stupid.
05 December, 2006
MPAA - Commits Fraud to catch "petty theft"?
Digg This
A recent Wired Article spreads some light on the mechanisms the MPAA (and probably RIAA) uses to gain information on ISP customers.
If I was a lawyer defending people being accused of trading songs I would ask questions as to how exactly they obtained the IP addresses, MAC addresses and then most importantly linked them to individuals. From a technical standpoint these items are notoriously inaccurate, with changing processes and different mechanisms between providers. It is not that it cannot be done properly but if false pretenses are used to develop the data then a chance of error is much higher.
Of course most of the people being sued by these two organizations can't afford a lawyer.
So they are essentially assumed guilty and the evidence used to accuse them is obtained by at the very least questionable practices. Possibly illegal ones.
Let me be clear here. I strongly support the rights of people or organizations to choose what they do with data they own. If they want to lock their songs and movies down so tight that no one can reasonably watch or listen to them then I support their right to do so. I have not and will not steal music. I won't let my children do it and have taken steps to make it hard for my 13 year old to even try. I basically think that anyone who installs bit torrent, Limewire or any of the other p2p products on their home computers are essentially insane and asking for a problem of some sort.
Update in Comments on the "insane" statement.
If companies want to use legitimate tactics to track down people illegally profiting on their intellectual property then I support and would even help them.
If these companies want to irrationally impede even legitimate access to a product that they make money on by trying to get as wide a paying view as possible then more power to them.
but
They will go out of business in the long run. That too is their right.
I would, however, like to know how much money the RIAA and MPAA make on these essentially indefensible law suits. How much gets passed to the members? Any?
If I was a member of one of these organizations I would be asking why it is good for an organization that I pay to advocate for me to be suing my best customers and generating such consistently bad publicity.
I would also ask them how employing questionable or outright fraudulent activities has helped reduce my declining market share and profits. Activities that only recently resulted in the ouster of the CEO of a major tech company and a shake up of its Board.
Once more, for legitimate and warranted investigations I have no problem with this. It isn't hacking or fraud if you go to a company with warrant or evidence in hand. In the long run poor decisions and tactics hinder legitimate investigations. Real hacking and fraud are bad and usually illegal (the law is often one step behind) and should be treated as such by every reputable organization. If HP didn't teach that I don't know what will.
I saw some motion for establishing a class action against these organizations based on their methods. It would seem to me that there is a growing class of individuals out there that has lost a good deal of money based in part on deceptive and possibly illegal practices. I wonder if this would help or hinder that from occurring? Any Lawyers want to educate me?
This is a continued off topic rant from here
and from Rich here
Digg This
A recent Wired Article spreads some light on the mechanisms the MPAA (and probably RIAA) uses to gain information on ISP customers.
If I was a lawyer defending people being accused of trading songs I would ask questions as to how exactly they obtained the IP addresses, MAC addresses and then most importantly linked them to individuals. From a technical standpoint these items are notoriously inaccurate, with changing processes and different mechanisms between providers. It is not that it cannot be done properly but if false pretenses are used to develop the data then a chance of error is much higher.
Of course most of the people being sued by these two organizations can't afford a lawyer.
So they are essentially assumed guilty and the evidence used to accuse them is obtained by at the very least questionable practices. Possibly illegal ones.
Let me be clear here. I strongly support the rights of people or organizations to choose what they do with data they own. If they want to lock their songs and movies down so tight that no one can reasonably watch or listen to them then I support their right to do so. I have not and will not steal music. I won't let my children do it and have taken steps to make it hard for my 13 year old to even try. I basically think that anyone who installs bit torrent, Limewire or any of the other p2p products on their home computers are essentially insane and asking for a problem of some sort.
Update in Comments on the "insane" statement.
If companies want to use legitimate tactics to track down people illegally profiting on their intellectual property then I support and would even help them.
If these companies want to irrationally impede even legitimate access to a product that they make money on by trying to get as wide a paying view as possible then more power to them.
but
They will go out of business in the long run. That too is their right.
I would, however, like to know how much money the RIAA and MPAA make on these essentially indefensible law suits. How much gets passed to the members? Any?
If I was a member of one of these organizations I would be asking why it is good for an organization that I pay to advocate for me to be suing my best customers and generating such consistently bad publicity.
I would also ask them how employing questionable or outright fraudulent activities has helped reduce my declining market share and profits. Activities that only recently resulted in the ouster of the CEO of a major tech company and a shake up of its Board.
Once more, for legitimate and warranted investigations I have no problem with this. It isn't hacking or fraud if you go to a company with warrant or evidence in hand. In the long run poor decisions and tactics hinder legitimate investigations. Real hacking and fraud are bad and usually illegal (the law is often one step behind) and should be treated as such by every reputable organization. If HP didn't teach that I don't know what will.
I saw some motion for establishing a class action against these organizations based on their methods. It would seem to me that there is a growing class of individuals out there that has lost a good deal of money based in part on deceptive and possibly illegal practices. I wonder if this would help or hinder that from occurring? Any Lawyers want to educate me?
This is a continued off topic rant from here
and from Rich here
Digg This
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
