Blogging isn’t cool (anymore)

In the past week, I’ve read a number of stories about how blogging is the “uncoolest” thing you can do online now. Apparently, the kids aren’t doing it any more (only old folks like me are). The source of this new data is from the  Social Media and Young Adults report released by The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

I wouldn’t call myself an avid blogger by any stretch, but I do find it a useful medium to post news stories. I also use my blog as a personal information management tool. It allows me to structure my information more informally–complete with tags, categories, and search features. Call me old-fashioned, but I find that quite useful. 

This is just a warning to all you kids out there: Blogging may be on its way out, but it won’t be long before Facebook, Twitter, SMS, and other social media will pass too (and you’ll feel as old — and as grumpy — as I do).

You can read Nicholas Carr’s perspective here.

ISPs off the hook (in Australia)

A judge in Australia recently ruled that Internet Service Providers (like Bell, Rogers, etc.) cannot be held accountable for the actions of their users when it comes to illegal downloading. This case is being watched closely by studio executives around the world (and I’m guessing they’re not pleased). I understand the desire to stop illegal downloading, but trying to force ISPs to be a “Big Brother” is problematic for a number of reasons (encrypted torrents, privacy expectations of customers, proxy servers, etc.). This strategy might reduce illegal downloading, but it won’t eliminate it.

Yes, the Internet can be used for illegal activity, but I’m not sure we want to turn our ISPs into the de facto Internet police. To me this seems more like knee-jerk reaction by studios trying to protect their existing business without thinking about how to use these networks to their advantage.

On a side note, the entire proceedings of the case were posted on Twitter (which is apparently a first for Australia).

You can read more detail from the CBC website.

ACTA and government secrecy

As issues of control over digital content and intellectual property heat up, it is interesting to note that Canada is currently negotiating a new copyright treaty called ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). What is most concerning about this negotiation however is that it has been cloaked in secrecy. In fact, the government has sought little input from interest groups, the press, or average Canadians on the matter. Hmm… why would they do that? Well, probably because some of the provisions in the new treaty will likely be unpopular.

Some provisions that are apparently being discussed include:

• border searches of data on laptops and personal media devices
• requests that ISPs spy on their customers
• expects ISPs to disconnect households from the Internet if they are accused of copyright infringement

This new treaty is much more in-line with the American DMCA and to most observers seems like a regressive step back. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need for content producers to protect their intellectual property, but if we’re going to rewrite legislation that will affect every Canadian connected to the Internet is it unreasonable to want a transparent process?

Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing has much more to say on the matter, including a video from Canadian MP Charlie Angus. It’s worth a watch.

Corporate Love Story

Corporations take great care to develop, protect and nurture their brands, but what happens when customers co-opt the brand and use it for their own purposes? In a rather glaring example, David Seger has been secretly filming a soap opera called “IKEA Heights” inside a large IKEA store in California. To date, they have six episodes (http://www.ikeaheights.com/). IKEA’s official stance on this project is that they consider it an unauthorized use of their retail space, but they’re not exactly clamping down on Seger and his band of actors.

Of course, this isn’t the only example. A kid in New York (Nicholi White) records himself lipsyncing to popular songs at Apple stores around the city. You can see some samples from Mahalo. What is a company to do? Sure user-generated buzz is a good thing, but what if things go wrong? Could the brand/company end up tarnished as a result? Will this encourage future “unauthorized” uses of company property and retail space? Should we care?

In the end maybe we should remember: It’s okay to love IKEA, but it’s not okay to love in an IKEA.

Disaster and Technology

The disaster and aftermath in Haiti is truly tragic. In the wake of the earthquake it’s understandable that so many people are trying to find information on their loved ones. In the subsequent confusion, however, one of the key problems related to finding information is knowing where to look . In this case, there are actually too many places to look. 

There are simply too many “peoplefinder” sites online (Red Cross family links, New York times, Koneksyon, etc.) and these sites essentially operate as separate silos. In a time of crisis, unconnected sites become a significant barrier to getting good information quickly. Christopher Csikszentmihalyi, the Director of the MIT Center for Future Civic Media, has written an open letter to organizations hoping that they will pool their data. In particular, he recommends that one of Google’s applications become a central clearinghouse for information on finding people. Let’s open up the data!

You can read more on the story from BoingBoing or read about the Center for Future Civic Media.

Social Network Suicide

Ever wonder what it would be like to go back to the days before social networking? Remember when you actually hung out with real friends face-to-face? Remember what communication was like when it wasn’t mediated by a computer screen?  If you feel like unfettering yourself, a company in the Netherlands has developed a tool to get you off the social grid. Just visit the Web 2.0 Suicide machine and get rid of your (online) friends!

Google v. China

Google and China have a long history (at least in Internet years). China has consistently required search engines to censor search results that the government didn’t want the public to have access to (discussion of human rights issues, material on democracy, Tibet, etc.). In order to operate in China and have access to a large growing market, Google (among other search engines) has had to comply–albeit grudingly–with China’s demands.

Ars Technica has an interesting report that Google is seriously considering dropping the practice of censoring results–and may have to shut its doors in China as a result. Why you ask? Well, it seems as though Google is getting frustrated by sophisticated cyberattacks that have originated in China. Some experts suspect that at least some of the attacks are from the Chinese government itself. Why? Well, one reason might be to steal potentially valuable corporate intelligence. Indeed, Google claims that in a recent attack some of their intellectual property was stolen.  

Read more Google’s new approach to China on the company’s official blog.

Read further commentary from Ars Technica.

Assume the Identity

Over the past few months Evan Ratliff and Wired magazine ran a simple social experiment: they wanted to see how easy it was to assume a new identity in the Information Age (and leave your old identity completely behind). Evan’s plan was to disappear on August 15 and try to stay hidden until September 15, challenging people to identify his new persona and locate him. Evan would agree to live a “normal” life with his new identity, and certain details of his activities (e.g. purchases) would be posted online by Wired available to anyone who wanted to join the search. These details would be typical pieces of information that a private investigator would have access to on a real-life manhunt.

The story raises a number of interesting questions about the nature of anonymity (or pseuodnymity) in such a techno-centric age. Evan used both technical hacks and misinformation to keep people off his trail, but eventually, he was found.

You can read the lengthy tale of this vanishing act at Wired.

Facebook: friends and foes

Natalie Blanchard, an IBM employee in Quebec, got into trouble recently when she posted pictures of herself on Facebook. On the surface, these pictures weren’t particularly troubling. The photos depicted her enjoying a couple of parties and a trip to the beach. The problem with the photos was that she was being ‘cheerful.’ Apparently, Natalie was on medical leave from her job for depression when investigators from the company’s health insurer (Manulife) noticed the photos. In their opinion if Natalie was well enough to go on trips to the beach she was well enough to work, so they stopped paying out her benefits.

Understandably, Manulife doesn’t want people abusing the system, but depression is a notoriously hard condition to treat. Did Manulife have the right to terminate her benefits? Was she treated fairly? To be honest, there are still a lot of questions in this case. Fortunately, both sides will make their arguments in front of the Quebec Supreme Court on December 8. Maybe we’ll find out more then.

For a short overview of the story (and some interesting questions) visit CNN’s Technically Incorrect blog. Thanks to Brad D for the link!

Stay tuned for another ad

The NYT is reporting on a recent patent application by Apple Computer that is particularly curious. They’re filing for a patent that enables them to put advertising on nearly any device with a screen, but that’s not the interesting part. This patent also includes an “enforcement routine” that forces people to watch the ads and respond to them. In some cases, the device could be programmed to freeze until the viewer proves they watched the ad. It seems strange for a company like Apple that is swimming in cash to propose such a strong-armed approach to ads, but you never know what they’re up to.

Read more from the NYT.