July 31, 2010
Clive Thompson over at Wired.com wrote an interesting article the other day in which he predicted the gradual demise of telephone calls. His prediction isn’t exactly revolutionary or particularly insightful, but his explanation lies on premises worth exploring. Thompson hypothesizes that telephone calls are being phased out because of an inherent problem with their unexpected, real time delivery system. He claims that phone calls represent a startling disturbance whereas other forms of contact, such as instant messaging, texting, and Facebooking are appealing in their passivity. I suppose he has a point about the intrusiveness of a phone call during dinner or in the midst of an intimate moment. Indeed there are times when a ringing phone feels like a nuisance regardless of who’s on the other end.
Still, Thompson’s assumptions are missing key aspects of evolving cultural and behavioral patterns. As someone who doesn’t believe in any kind of static human nature, I propose that the reliance on alternative forms of communication signifies a shift driven by technology, not the other way around. Thompson’s views illustrate the classic hypothesis behind economic liberalism, namely that the free market determines success based on competition. In other words, people are moving away from phone calls because they simply favor texting or any other available medium. By this logic, voice calls will die as a result of consumer choice, which dictates survival in the marketplace.
I disagree. On the contrary, I see texting, chatting, Facebook, and other passive means of communication as altering fundamental aspects of human interaction. People utilize their mobile devices in order to stay in constant contact, yet these channels provide the ideal platform for engaging in avoidance and other forms of passive-aggressive behavior. Take Facebook for example. Users are encouraged to gather as many so-called friends as possible, but in the process, they end up establishing relationships with complete strangers. They are also forced to relentlessly confront a host of people they are no longer interested in, like former friends, unwelcome acquaintances, ex-lovers, etc. I can’t count how many times I’ve listened to Facebook users complain about unwanted visitors to their profile pages or comments from someone they don’t want to deal with. When I suggest removing the offending individual from their contacts or blocking them altogether, it becomes obvious that since everything on Facebook is public, dissolving a digital friendship means double the drama. The latent functions of constant contact are inescapable, making it impossible to silently move on from or ignore people.
Of course, it’s intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the control aspect of new media. Users create these channels because they want to feel wanted, important, and popular, which is part of the reason why they’ll leave someone on their friends list even though they never talk actually talk to him or her. At the same time, sending a text message or a Facebook comment lessens the expectation of response time, allowing the receiver “space” to reply at his or her convenience; hence the control factor. While the timing of these forms of contact is just as unpredictable as a phone call, the receiver feels no pressure to respond immediately. Then there’s the fact that digital conversations always leave a transcript, which can be shared with anyone. A typical phone call isn’t going to be recorded, so there’s some semblance of privacy. Also, it’s a lot harder to lie over the telephone than it is online. Anyone can write an enthusiastic instant message to someone they can’t stand and come off as genuine, which is quite frightening. Plus, communicating via text of any kind increases the likelihood of being misunderstood or misinterpreted exponentially. Vocal clues like tone of voice are fairly easy to understand whereas internet sarcasm tends to fall totally flat. Since text messages have all the clarity of a smoke signal, it appears as though technology is leading us down on the path of reverse evolution Nietzsche warned us about at the end of the 19th century.
I haven’t even come close to presenting an adequate analysis of this relatively recent phenomenon here. The topic could easily be a psychology or sociology student’s doctoral dissertation. Nevertheless, Thompson’s article certainly got me thinking about the ramifications of communication in a technological society, and for that I thank him. I think……
July 30, 2010
Ok, we can officially add e-readers to the ever growing list of consumer goods I just don’t get. First off, why would I feel the need to purchase a separate device for e-books when I can easily download them onto my netbook ? Not that I actually download e-books. Maybe I’m old school, but when I read a book, I want to physically hold the damn thing. The last thing I want to do when I’m in a reading mood is to stare at a computer screen or press any buttons. Call me crazy, but I usually read to escape the confines of the digital world. No screen is going to recreate the experience of reading; why not just pick up a book instead of wasting time and energy trying to create a reasonable facsimile? Sounds like a true exercise in futility to me.
Plus, most of the books I want to read aren’t any cheaper if I download them as opposed to buying a paper copy at the Borders down the street. For instance, the Kindle version of Kerouac’s classic On the Road costs $12.99. Really? Why? Amazon has paperback copies for $10.88. I’d be paying an extra $2 for what, exactly? Convenience?
It goes without saying that there’s no cool used/rare e-book store filled with forgotten words waiting for me to unearth; e-books have all the personality of a bowl of white rice. And I certainly can’t pick up a couple of awesome e-books at the Goodwill for 50 cents apiece. The appeal of most electronic devices, such as MP3 players is the ability to carry tons of content with you wherever you go. This concept doesn’t make sense when it comes to books. Why would I want to bring my library with me to the supermarket? I can’t envision a scenario where I would find myself reading, yet not have room to bring along a book. Maybe I’m alone on this one, but I don’t typically read multiple books simultaneously. I stick to a single story until I’m finished with it; therefore, I have no need to access 20,000 titles, say, while I wait for the bus.
Beyond my own personal tastes, I’m also confused about the target market for these things. As a general rule, young people (ages 35 and under) do not read, unless you want to pretend that skimming through the pages of glorified comic books, Twilight , and Harry Potter volume 85 counts. I refuse to play that game. If I come across a tad bitter here, it’s because I’ve been an avid reader my entire life. And I’ve never met anyone not old enough to be my grandparent who actually reads real books for pleasure. Not even the English majors in college fulfilled my dreams of finding people who share my passion for nonfiction and quirky lit. So, based on my own anecdotal experience, the majority of the reading demographic isn’t exactly technologically astute. No, these folks are slow to embrace change and their eyesight can’t handle a pocket sized screen anymore.
Once again, there must be something the manufacturers know that I’m oblivious to because Amazon announced it’s releasing the third round of Kindle devices. These latest models are smaller and you’ll be able to get one without 3g wireless capabilities for about $140, not including tax. For that price, I could buy enough reading material to keep my mind occupied for the rest of the year. Ahem. The ultra light Kindles with 3g will run you about $190. Both versions will be available in late August. The price drops are part of Amazon’s plan to annihilate Barnes & Noble’s Nook and the Sony Reader, although some hacks are inexplicably trying to pit the Kindle against Apple’s iPad. I suppose I can see a loose nexus, since they’re both overpriced gizmos you’d expect to see yuppies carrying around at Jamba Juice. Anything beyond that, though, remains the product of an overactive imagination, a prime example of desperate sensationalism. I can’t wait to read the inevitable product reviews featuring side by side comparisons of Kindles and iPads. Talk about fighting for words…
July 28, 2010
As a recent college graduate, it comes as no surprise to me that several U.S. universities are attempting to incorporate Apple’s iPad into their curriculums. Despite the failure of similar experiments with Amazon’s Kindle, and the fact that some schools banned the iPad a few months ago for seriously undermining their WiFi networks, the schools in question are willing to give the device another chance.
They claim the iPad will cut textbook costs because digital versions of the required reading are available for substantially lower costs than their printed counterparts. This sounds nice, but it’s important to keep in mind that these figures are based on the assumption that students would be buying brand new books; I didn’t know a single student who purchased new texts from the campus bookstore unless they’d exhausted all other options. Many students by used textbooks from their peers or on-line from sites like ebay, Amazon, and half.com. Even the campus bookstore tried to entice students by offering previously owned reading material and their price gouging was nothing short of infamous. So the idea that buying a $600 device plus the costs of digital downloads will save students money when a semester’s worth of used books will set students back, oh, about $600 is absolutely ludicrous.
The press releases are also gushing over the prospect of students not having to carry around heavy backpacks along with their cumbersome laptops, which makes me wonder what planet these people are living on. It’s as if the iPad were literally the only machine capable of downloading e-books. The schools could, for about the same cost, provide their students with netbooks equipped with word processing programs, OneNote, and Powerpoint. And some readers may be surprised to learn that a regular old netbook is fully capable of downloading an e-book. The fine folks at CNET did an excellent job of explaining why netbooks are far superior to iPads; I strongly suggest college administrators do some reading of their own on this subject. I certainly hope I’m not the only person who finds it odd that institutions of higher learning would want their students to rely on a device created solely for entertainment purposes while in the classroom. Ordinary laptops are distracting enough; handing college kids machines marketed as high tech toys sends the wrong message entirely.
Of course, since it’s only been 7 months since I graduated, I know what’s really going here. Just about every student in America is familiar with a company called eFollet because these people have a monopoly on campus bookstores. They also happen to have a lucrative contract with Apple, which I suspect is the real reason why students are being force fed tablets instead of a product they might actually find useful for things not related to Facebook. Stuff like, I don’t know, learning perhaps?
July 27, 2010
Back in the early days of web searches, circa 1999, there was one fictitious dude confused surfers could always turn to for answers. His name was Jeeves, and for whatever reason, he was supposed to be a butler. Perhaps his profession was an attempt to make ordinary people feel important and pampered. Or maybe the mascot’s purpose was to conjure up warm and fuzzy nostalgic feelings for the long lost Mr. Belvedere. While his back story never came to light, Askjeeves ruled the search world for several years before being brutally trampled by the sinister forces within the Google Empire. Part of Jeeves’ appeal came from the innovative question and answer format that resembled s useful magic eight ball. But then the search world turned to selecting relevant content via keywords and algorithms. To keep up with the times, the company abandoned poor Jeeves at some off ramp in the middle of nowhere along the information superhighway. Henceforth, they became known as Ask.com, which is commonly referred to as the #4 search engine; that is the polite way of saying they will soon join Jeeves in the realm of pop culture obscurity.
In a last ditch effort to make a splash, or even a sputter, the company unveiled its new old format today. Those who are old enough to remember the internets a decade ago will instantly recognize the return of the question and answer fueled search system. Curiously, Jeeves is still nowhere to be found. Anyway, now when you log on to Ask.com, you are greeted with a short list of the most asked questions, just like in the good old days. Only the content that appears after you hit enter is actually pertains to the topic at hand, unlike the listings of yesteryear. For example, when I ask, “How evil is Google,” I get a page full of articles that explore this very topic. Clearly, they’ve managed to blend their two methods of obtaining results, which creates for a user friendly design that manages to be useful at the same time. Personally, I’ve caught myself phrasing Google search queries in the form of a question only to get bizarre and disappointing listings. So, for me at least, Ask.com’s return to the interrogative model is a welcome throwback.
While I love their search basis, the rest of the site leaves a lot to be desired. The question and answer format doesn’t work well in terms of images, and this aspect of the site is almost embarrassing. There’s only 15 results per page and they didn’t spring for any cool extras either.
Yawn.
Sadly, the news feeder isn’t much better. It pulls up irrelevant content after the first couple of articles, which is frankly unacceptable at this point. Their video page is a little better, but I would never actually use it, so I don’t have much to compare it to. The map feature is truly disappointing. The so-called street view is nothing more than a distant image that must have been shot from a helicopter. Unless you’ve got a pilot’s license, this thing isn’t going to help you get from point A to point B without getting lost.
In sum, I love the plain search aspect of this redesign, but the rest of the site can only be described as pathetic. I hate to do this, but I’m going to have to give Ask.com a big fat FAIL. So much for finding an independent alternative to the likes of Google…
July 26, 2010
A while back I reported on the Monster from Mountain View curiously caving to perfectly reasonable consumer demands. Since Google is famous for staying the course, that story softened their image a bit and demonstrated a willingness to adapt to their customer’s tastes. Lest we lull ourselves into believing that a kinder, gentler Google may be emerging, the company is back in the headlines today as a latent consequence of its refusal to compromise with a bunch of French newspapers. What got these Frenchmen so upset in the first place? Google’s refusal to give these media outlets a cut of the ad revenue that their content generated.
This issue is hardly new. Google’s actually been sued over its news feed on the grounds of copyright infringement, but this case was about as successful as most of the legal challenges Google has faced over the years. Indeed, their track record is undeniably impressive, especially when you consider how many antitrust and intellectual property claims they’ve skirted. Nevertheless, these determined Frenchmen are setting themselves up to teach Google a lesson. After all, in this instance, Google is the middle man. Google news would not be able to operate without content, although it’s not yet clear whether or not these newspapers will be boycotting Google entirely. I’m no business expert, but it seems to me that this move would be relegated to a harmless symbolic gesture if the companies opt to continue to allow Google to use their articles. Sure, a handful of hardcore nationalists and zealous anti-corporatists will flock to a viable alternative to the Google Empire, but those without profound political convictions will simply ignore it as long as they can access the stories they want to read in a format they’re comfortable with.
Rumor has it that Google is attempting to avoid another such instance in the future by developing a “micropayment” plan (known as NewsPass)that will pass a few bucks along to their publishers. Now there’s no way that the French collation is unaware of Google’s proposed remedy;openly defying the ruler of the search engine world signifies a deep hatred. Obviously, there is more to this rift than the official storyline discloses, unless these folks are going to simply look the other way while Google continues to make use of their labor. This could turn into another David and Goliath scenario very quickly, which illustrates why boycotting Google would be a risky venture at best. Still, print media is slowly disappearing as a result of the interwebs and these folks may truly believe they have nothing to lose at this point. Their choices are to continue to be exploited by a massive, foreign corporation, or to build strength in numbers and prepare for a pyrrhic victory. Considering the anti-Google attitude coming out of continental Europe lately, they may be able to capitalize on underdog sympathies and calls for increased localism stemming from long held reservations about the impact of globalization a.k.a. Americanization.
One thing’s for sure: they have no choice but to go for the gold. Otherwise their credibility and branding will be forever tarnished. Their success hinges on their looming decision to completely boycott Google. They’re set to launch in September, although their fate will be sealed as soon as they make the big announcement. Here’s hoping they tackle the beast head on.
July 24, 2010
I’ve previously expressed my disdain for all things social networking, so I’ll resist the temptation to delve into a full blown rant against this reprehensible fad. And yes, despite the spin coming from hype driven media outlets, the social networking phenomenon is, alas, nothing more than a fad. I say that with the utmost confidence, although I admit that my assertion may be a product of wishful thinking. Perhaps I fail to grasp the depths of human depravity that are responsible for creating this egocentric aspect of contemporary culture. Indeed, Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Facebook and Twitter.
Speaking of Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s obsession with getting people to broadcast the most mundane details of inane existence has gotten him into a bit more legal trouble. You may or may not be aware of the fact that Zuckerberg faced a slew of accusations shortly after the release of his virtual plague, spearheaded by Harvard dorm mates. Naturally I’m questioning the validity of these intellectual property claims because, after all, there was absolutely nothing innovative about Facebook from the get go. It certainly wasn’t the first website of its kind; that honor belongs to SixDegrees.com (launched in 1997, or 7 years prior to Facebook). Most of these instances have been settled out of court, and reports indicate that Zuckerberg is in fact guilty of numerous ethical violations, including spying on his own users and deliberately sabotaging a competitor’s site. Maybe that’s what he was referring to when he declared that privacy is dead.
Anyway, Zuckerberg finds himself in court this time because of allegations that he signed a contract effectively selling half of his company to a guy named Paul Ceglia before the site even went live. The merits of the case appear rather flimsy at this point, seeing as how Mr. Ceglia himself is no stranger to fraud charges. Yet, the official record proves that Zuckerberg worked for Ceglia during his freshman year, which lends the suit a modicum of credibility. Today Zuckerberg stated that the alleged contract is “likely forged,” hardly forceful diction for a man who stands to lose 85% of his company. Still, it seems unbelievable that Ceglia would have simply sat on the sidelines for nearly a decade as the company transformed into a widely publicized success. Zuckerberg’s lawyers are hoping to use this and the fact that ‘The Facebook” supposedly hadn’t been dreamed up at the time of their relationship will provide the veritable smoking gun. Early predictions favor Zuckerberg, although this could be another sign of that wishful thinking I mentioned earlier.
July 23, 2010
Long ago, a couple of computer geeks had a vision that the internet would become the last realm of unfettered creativity. They dreamt of a virtual playground of open ideas and constant innovation fueled by the absence of legal confines and restraints.
The exact moment when reality killed that fantasy is debatable, but this piece by the folks at Wired, about a smug hotshot attorney named Steve Gibson, certainly signifies something monumental in the fall of the on-line Eden. As the article explains, Gibson is an intellectual property lawyer in Las Vegas who figured out that he could make a lot of money by suing people that “illegally” place news articles on their websites or blogs. Gibson certainly isn’t alone, and he’s got his sights set on websites that simply allow their users to post articles onto a web-based forum. Obviously, such activity is discouraged under existing laws, and copyright holders are well within their rights to force a site to take down an article posted by a user in this kind of situation. But actually going as far as to sue a webmaster of such a benign incident represents a new low in terms of frivolous copyright infringement and liability claims.
Now don’t get me wrong. Plagiarism is a vile act that should not be tolerated. Taking someone else’s hard work and claiming it as your own is tantamount to physically stealing and ought to be treated likewise. That said, I honestly do not understand the logic behind this type of legal action. As long as the site, blog, or user clearly states where the article came from and who wrote it, what’s the problem? There seems to be an odd assumption behind this litigation, and that stems from the idea that an article belongs solely to the copyright holder. Consequently, anyone who wishes to run said article elsewhere must first obtain permission to do so.
My question is, why? I thought the whole point of putting an article on-line was to increase access to the information it contains. I mean, as a writer, wouldn’t you want as many people as possible to enjoy your material? By my estimation, it doesn’t really matter where someone happens to see the article and view its contents. After all, one website is as good a source as any other. Of course, I can envision plenty of scenarios that warrant invoking intellectual property laws. For example, as previously stated, a user who attempts to present someone else’s writing as his or her own deserves to be sued. The same goes for a person that alters an article in a meaningful way without attributing the changes to him or herself thus separating them from the words of the original author; both of these instances justify taking appropriate action in the form of tort claims.
Nevertheless, merely posting an article (as long as you cite the source/author) does not equate to a violation in my opinion, especially if the item is not used for commercial purposes. Aside from the fact that making money off of other people’s labor is standard operating procedure in a capitalist economy, generating revenue without permission or paying royalties is obviously wrong, too. Still, that’s an entirely separate issue than that of a few people sharing a newspaper article in an on-line forum for the purpose of entertainment or educating each another. According to Mr. Gibson, the free exchange of text is a criminal act under any circumstances. His rational could easily be applied to images as well, although I’m sure he’s already thought of that. Laugh if you will, but I firmly believe that his draconian vision strikes at the very core of internet freedoms, and his success threatens to permanently alter the web as we know it. At this point, the fate of the series of tubes lies in the hands of judges, the ostensibly neutral arbiters of the rule of law. Let’s hope Mr. Gibson finds himself standing in front of a judge that spends his time off the bench lurking around 4chan.
July 22, 2010
Would someone please, for the love of God, explain to me why I should have bought an iPad instead of my new HP Mini 210 Netbook?
Seriously. I’m waiting.
I guess I just don’t see the appeal of carrying around a giant square that does basically the same stuff as a SmartPhone only it costs at least a couple hundred dollars more. Call me crazy, but I’m not willing to shell out a minimum of $500 for a device that’s the size of a small computer yet has all the charms of a BlackBerry. Apple’s website refers to the iPad as, “A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price.” At least we agree on the last part; I can’t fathom anyone actually paying more than $100 for the privilege of owning a machine that does absolutely nothing novel whatsoever.
But I may very well be alone in this as the iPad is about to get some stiff competition from a series of knock offs. It stands to reason that Apple’s competitors wouldn’t bother to waste time and money developing something to rival what they thought was a mere fad; indeed, it’s entirely possible that I’m way underestimating the marketing potential of these so-called tablets. After all, the iPad runs its very own apps! APPS, APPS, APPS!
The folks at Dell are stepping into the mix in an obvious attempt to remain relevant. The upcoming Dell Streak will be noticeably smaller than the iPad, which is probably a good thing considering this makes it look a lot less like a laptop screen that somehow lost its keyboard. The Streak moonlights as a clunky cell phone, making it difficult to see it as anything beyond a glorified SmartPhone. Then again, at 5 inches tall, the Streak will be comparable in size to the iPhone. Tech geeks are moaning about its Android software system, but that kind of talk should be relegated to the realm of nerds only on-line forums. They’re probably also disappointed by the fact that its maximum capacity will top out at 32GBs. The most sophisticated iPad model reaches heights of 64gs; that’s still roughly a quarter of the size of my netbook’s hard drive. Just saying.
Meanwhile, Lenovo revealed the LePad today, which represents its alternative to the iPad. The LePad will run on Android as well, so the company may be purposefully trying to alienate the geeks of the world. Details about the product are scare at the moment, except for Lenovo’s plan to release the tablet in China. Let’s not forget that Chinese counterfeiters already beat everyone to the punch with a tablet of their own back in May. HP silently conveyed its intentions to hop on the tablet bandwagon recently. At the moment, the HP Slate is shrouded in mystery although it appears on their site. HP bought the rights to the PalmPad name, and rumors of a Google based Slate alongside a PalmPad powered by Windows 7 abound and vice versa. Clearly, keeping people guessing is generating more hype than any announcement would garner. Sounds like HP’s stealing more than one play out of Apple’s playbook, doesn’t it?
Of course, an important question looms in the background behind the teasers: do any of these hopefuls have what it takes to defeat the iPad? Should HP decide to go with Windows 7, I’d double down on the Slate.
July 20, 2010
Despite the dismal failure of Google News redux, the mischievous mercenaries from Mountain View decided to take another crack at fixing something that ain’t broke. Today they launched a redesigned Google image search page; the folks at Wired have already pointed out its suspicious similarities to the Bing version. Indeed, Google basically ripped the new layout right out of Bing’s playbook, a brazen act to say the least. The only logical explanation for this intellectual property theft is that Google is supremely confident that no one but tech columnists will even notice their dastardly deed because, well, it’s Bing.
That said, Google’s previous image format seemed fine to me, until I laid eyes on the latest incarnation. Now I know what was bugging me all these years as I searched through pages and pages of useless pictures that had absolutely nothing to do with my search query. This time around, the results are actually relevant, for the most part, anyway. Also absent are those annoying lines of text that appeared underneath every picture as if to justify its presence lest you question the wisdom of All Mighty keyword feeder. Now users are able to scroll down through a screen filled with multiple page results on a single screen, so you don’t have to keep hitting the back button on your browser.
The minimal amount of white space gives the page a collage-like feel, which seems fitting and natural. It may look a bit chaotic to some, but personally, I think it’s a huge improvement. Simply drag your mouse across the scattered images and hover over them to get an enlarged view. Click on the pic and you’ll be taken to a landing page that displays a full sized likeness in front of the host site. To copy and paste the picture onto a forum or someone’s facebook page, click on the link to the right of your screen entitled, “full size image.” From there it’s business as usual. Below the link, you’ll find the image’s specs, including the size and file type. Above the link is the exact name of the host site, so that you have the option of not actually bothering to click through to it should you think it unsafe or find its content objectionable. Or you can click on the dim backdrop behind the pic and go straight through.
In case you haven’t played around with this facet of the Google Empire lately, I strongly recommend giving it another shot. There are plenty of other cool features, such as image searches by color. I’m really digging this option, but maybe that’s because I’m a girl. In fact, I could probably kill the rest of natural life looking at endless pictures of flowers in shades of yellow, green, blue, pink, and purple (too cute!).
There are plenty of other search options for people not interested in gawking at various flowers all day. Users can type in a key word and obtain results for books, videos, maps, shopping, news, blogs, etc. You can also display stuff according to when it was posted on the series of tubes, by the amount of time it’s been out there, and more. Overall, I’d have to give Bing two very enthusiastic thumbs up! Err, um, I mean Google.
Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson was fond of saying that, “There’s no such thing as paranoia.” In light of recent events, I must say that the good doctor may have really been onto something. No, I’m not rambling incoherently about random, nonsensical conspiracies. I only wish. What I’m about to discuss is certainly not for the faint of heart, so those prone to panic attacks or fond of engaging in nefarious activities on the interwebs should consider this their last warning to stop reading.
On July 9th, 2010 a website called Blogetery.com mysterious disappeared from cyberspace. Completely. The site was home to some 70,000 blogs, which have all been M.I.A. ever since. Naturally, former users and members of the online media have been trying to figure out exactly how and why this bizarre incident occurred. As many have already noted, sites like this are often at risk for copyright infringement, especially from content uploaded by their users. But these types of issues are typically resolved openly, and involve the offending parties, not the entire site. But owners of the now defunct Blogetery, Burst.net, aren’t talking, except to indicate that this wasn’t about copyright infringement and that the shutdown was the result of law enforcement action. The U.S. government doesn’t have a cyber police division (yet), which raises the obvious question of who has the authority to pull the plug without warning and zero disclosure. For the record, my money’s on the Department of Homeland Security, but that’s a separate post altogether.
The utter obliteration of a simple blogging site was virtually unprecedented and the incident seemed headed for obscurity due to a suspicious lack of mainstream press coverage. And then it happened again, less than a week after the Blogetery fiasco. A similar site of unknown origins/ownership, iPBFree.com, suffered the same unexplained fate, supposedly at the hands of an unnamed law enforcement agency. Absent from either of these reports is any mention of minor details, like search warrants, motive, or jurisdiction. You know, the whole due process thing.The Obama administration pledged to take internet piracy seriously, and thus far has made a few gestures to convey the strength of its resolve. It bears repeating that these covert tactics may be within the federal government’s powers as designated in the Patriot Act, although that massive piece of legislation is supposed to apply to counterterrorism measures. The American Bar Association has long recognized that the scope of the Patriot Act extends far beyond the parameters of its express purpose.
Still, as far as so-called cybersecurity goes, the Patriot Act is merely the beginning. Needless to say, the government’s actions in both instances are well within the parameters set forth in the Cybersecurity Act of 2009; thankfully that’s languishing in the committee stages, otherwise known as the graveyard of legislation. If you’ll recall the act’s announcement triggered a massive wave of anti-government sentiment in the already hostile world of on-line forums, news sites, and the like. These recent events make me wonder whether or not the government decided to circumvent the formalities of the legislative process in order to avoid a public outcry.
Not that this would be a first…..
UPDATE- The Plot thickens as PC World publishes a statement from the fine folks at Burst.net indicating Al-qaeda involvement. Right.
Older Posts »
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
