Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Opt in or out for web tracking organizations
Well, I am relieved someone is looking out for those of us on the web. According to WSJ, Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) is saying we need to allow customers to consent to have our online activities on the tracked. I agree with him. I'd like some say in whether or not I want to be a part of someone's data collection. We already have the mechanisms in place for opting in for telephone and cable hook ups. It's time we stop giving away all our information and stop having Big Brother advertisers watching us all the time.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Fighting fire with information
What's happening with the California fires is horrible, but there is a wonderful story out of Big Sur. Here's a good way the digital world is having an immediate impact to make lives better. It's prophetic, I think of the way we will communicate on a community level when some major disaster occurs.
While what this site is doing is very altruistic and community minded, what the web site's very existence raises, however, is a question of the digital divide. What about those who can't afford to have access to a computer, Blackberry, telephone or other digital device? Does this kind of communicating still give power to the few who have the tools?
What do we do about making today's technology available to everyone? Should access to the Internet be a right?
While what this site is doing is very altruistic and community minded, what the web site's very existence raises, however, is a question of the digital divide. What about those who can't afford to have access to a computer, Blackberry, telephone or other digital device? Does this kind of communicating still give power to the few who have the tools?
What do we do about making today's technology available to everyone? Should access to the Internet be a right?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Privacy? What privacy?
I don’t understand a lot about technology, with terms like IP addresses and cookies and what all is included in them. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out a federal judge has misapplied the privacy laws in requiring Google to hand over its database of YouTube users.
We who use the internet should know that nothing we do is private while on it. However, there are privacy laws that restrict who can get at that information. For the judge to rule that Google has to turn over to Viacom every YouTube user, user name and IP address with every video clip he/she ever viewed in order for Viacom to prove a point is an invasion of privacy and further erodes our privacy in our homes.
The Supreme Court, many years ago, ruled a person can view porn in the privacy of one’s own home, so should anyone be allowed to view magazines, internet, television, newspapers or any medium in the privacy of one’s home. It’s nobody’s business what I do in my own home, what I subscribe to or who I listen to. It’s like telling the New York Times to hand over its subscriber database to the Detroit Free Press. (I don’t think they’re owned by the same company, but I’m not sure about that.) Anyone who believes Viacom is going to use the information “exclusively for the purpose of proving our case…” well, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. If I want the competitor to know I’m shopping around for another provider, I’ll let them know.
We who use the internet should know that nothing we do is private while on it. However, there are privacy laws that restrict who can get at that information. For the judge to rule that Google has to turn over to Viacom every YouTube user, user name and IP address with every video clip he/she ever viewed in order for Viacom to prove a point is an invasion of privacy and further erodes our privacy in our homes.
The Supreme Court, many years ago, ruled a person can view porn in the privacy of one’s own home, so should anyone be allowed to view magazines, internet, television, newspapers or any medium in the privacy of one’s home. It’s nobody’s business what I do in my own home, what I subscribe to or who I listen to. It’s like telling the New York Times to hand over its subscriber database to the Detroit Free Press. (I don’t think they’re owned by the same company, but I’m not sure about that.) Anyone who believes Viacom is going to use the information “exclusively for the purpose of proving our case…” well, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. If I want the competitor to know I’m shopping around for another provider, I’ll let them know.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Chinese bloggers score victory
Well, it worked. The worldwide publicity generated by the Chinese bloggers forced the sacking of an official for "severe malfeasance." While the party line is that the local officials screwed up, the blogging world really made it happen. That the officer will probably get replaced by someone either more inept or more controlling and oppressive remains to be seen.
Granted, this kind of story needs to be vetted to find out who really did what, to see if the accusations of the bloggers are real or if the bloggers are playing vigilante. But when there's an oppressive regime, the benefit of the doubt will always go to the oppressed, at least for me.
While I applaud the persistence of those rebelling against the regime, in general, this kind of wide open world could be dangerous for anyone who does something in public. Context is taken out of the whole situation. Actions might speak louder than words, but it's like being a referee in a basketball or soccer or most other sports. It is usually an action in retaliation to a provocation that gets caught by referees. The one punished usually didn't start it.
Just so with the world wide web and media technology. We don't know the whole story most of the time. We don't know both sides.
Granted, this kind of story needs to be vetted to find out who really did what, to see if the accusations of the bloggers are real or if the bloggers are playing vigilante. But when there's an oppressive regime, the benefit of the doubt will always go to the oppressed, at least for me.
While I applaud the persistence of those rebelling against the regime, in general, this kind of wide open world could be dangerous for anyone who does something in public. Context is taken out of the whole situation. Actions might speak louder than words, but it's like being a referee in a basketball or soccer or most other sports. It is usually an action in retaliation to a provocation that gets caught by referees. The one punished usually didn't start it.
Just so with the world wide web and media technology. We don't know the whole story most of the time. We don't know both sides.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The whole world is watching
For those of us who remember the riots of the 1960s, we also remember the chant "The whole world is watching" reminding American politicians and administrations they couldn't hide police brutality towards rioting students. There was some citizen reporting that complemented media reporting, but without the instant technology we now have.
Here's what's good about the new media tools: They keep that chant relevant. The whole world is watching China while China fights to bolster its image for the Olympics. No matter how they try, the Chinese government can't keep their own brutality from being seen by the world. Bloggers are learning how to get around the government censors by blogging backwards, upside down, and any other way to get the story out.
It's not only wonderful there are people willing to risk detention and possibly their lives to get stories of oppressive government to the rest of the world, it's also great that mainstream media picks it up and broadcasts it.
When all voice are heard, more democratic ideals can be implemented. Maybe, just maybe, peace can be spread.
Here's what's good about the new media tools: They keep that chant relevant. The whole world is watching China while China fights to bolster its image for the Olympics. No matter how they try, the Chinese government can't keep their own brutality from being seen by the world. Bloggers are learning how to get around the government censors by blogging backwards, upside down, and any other way to get the story out.
It's not only wonderful there are people willing to risk detention and possibly their lives to get stories of oppressive government to the rest of the world, it's also great that mainstream media picks it up and broadcasts it.
When all voice are heard, more democratic ideals can be implemented. Maybe, just maybe, peace can be spread.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Gotcha!
The Gatorade Ball girl is just one of the problems I have with this new media. The Wall Street Journal is telling us it's a hoax, made up by an ad agency that didn't make the cut. Somehow it got onto blogging sites and it's become a sensation. If it is true, that it is a hoax, it's a sad day for new media and points to how easily anything can be manipulated and yet be a shot heard round the world and perceived as true within an instant.
Why do we let ourselves be fooled by things like this? If I had seen that on a picture in the newspaper or on television, I would have believed it. We've gotten so good at tricking the audience, we don't know what the truth is anymore.
Sad.
Why do we let ourselves be fooled by things like this? If I had seen that on a picture in the newspaper or on television, I would have believed it. We've gotten so good at tricking the audience, we don't know what the truth is anymore.
Sad.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Google puts on goggles
With Google's announcement they are getting into the web counting business for advertisers, our privacy is being invaded yet again. The worst part is they won't be charging the advertisers for this service. Maybe we should be used to having every stroke on our keyboard being measured and recorded. But I'm not. I'm glad people are already deleting their cookies but that is hard to remember to do after each site visit.
The move is a deeper intrusion into not only our buying habits, our grazing habits and our personal information such as age, gender and income. Advertisers should be wary of someone who you are spending your money with telling you how and where to spend it. Google is moving to the adviser role and that could be dangerous for monopolistic reasons.
It also ignores the web site visitor. Pass the savings onto the consumers at the site. Give incentives to consumers for visiting a site! Problem is, then advertisers wouldn't trust the data they were getting because they wouldn't know whether the visitor came for their company or for Google.
The move is a deeper intrusion into not only our buying habits, our grazing habits and our personal information such as age, gender and income. Advertisers should be wary of someone who you are spending your money with telling you how and where to spend it. Google is moving to the adviser role and that could be dangerous for monopolistic reasons.
It also ignores the web site visitor. Pass the savings onto the consumers at the site. Give incentives to consumers for visiting a site! Problem is, then advertisers wouldn't trust the data they were getting because they wouldn't know whether the visitor came for their company or for Google.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
