Showing posts with label gatekeepers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gatekeepers. Show all posts

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Lemming Tracks: Egypt Government Shuts Down Internet: It Can't Happen Here?

"Egypt Internet Shutdown Underscores Vulnerability"
Antone Gonsalves, InformationWeek (January 29, 2011)

"The government ordered the shutdown of the country's four ISPs, effectively blocking all Internet communications during anti-government protests.

"The ease with which Egypt was able to shutdown the Internet to cut off communications during violent, anti-government protests demonstrates the Internet's vulnerability in countries where there are few service providers.

"Egypt, where protests stem from frustration over government corruption, a depressed economy, and a lack of political freedom, started its Internet blockade this week by cutting off access to Twitter and Facebook. The sites are often used by protesters in troubled nations to organize demonstrations and stay a step ahead of police. On Friday, the sites were still inaccessible.

""We saw a drop in Egyptian traffic on Thursday and are now seeing only minimal traffic from Egypt," Facebook said in a statement emailed to InformationWeek Friday...."

The Lemming wrote about what happened in Tunisia earlier this month. (January 15, 2011)

Essentially, folks in Tunisia had gotten fed up with their apparently-permanent president. Thanks in part to the sort of informal communication that's possible on the Internet, in the Lemming's opinion, what started as one Tunisian setting himself on fire expanded into a nation-wide protest. And, not long after that, the president-for-life hightailing it for Saudi Arabia.

In a way, the folks who run Egypt are justified in having their enforcers kill protesters, and shutting down Internet access for their unruly subjects. The rulers probably like their jobs, and may think that they alone know what's best for the rabble.

The 'rabble' obviously has an alternative opinion on the subject.

Freedom of Expression - Precious

The Lemming likes living in America. Aside from a remarkable degree of economic opportunity, folks living in this country are allowed to speak their mind to a remarkable extent.

Even if they have something other than praise for the government.

It's the Lemming's opinion that folks being able to communicate with each other - even if members of Congress don't like what's said - is a good idea. But then, the Lemming thinks that good sense and intelligence isn't limited to those who won the last election.

The Lemming even thinks that newspaper editors, college professors, and media executives don't necessarily represent the pinnacle of human potential.

Information Gatekeepers and Changing Times

Folks like editors, professors, and media decision-makers are some of America's traditional information gatekeepers: the folks who, back in the 'good old days' decided what 'the masses' should see, hear, and read. For our own good, of course.

The Lemming's discussed information gatekeepers in another blog:It's the Lemming's opinion that folks don't tend to be entirely comfortable with change. Particularly if change means that they will have less power and status. Traditional information gatekeepers, again in the Lemming's opinion, have been upset about the new social structures of the Information Age.

With some reason.

Back in 'the good old days,' traditional information gatekeepers could keep facts they didn't like from 'the masses.' And congratulate themselves on being the privileged few who protected the common lot from complexities that they alone understood.

Perhaps the Lemming is being unfair.

This isn't a political blog, by the way, and the Lemming isn't 'political.' Not in the sense of always cheering for one side and booing the other. On the other hand, the Lemming is "apathetic" only in the sense of not caring - intensely, blindly, irrationally - about the 'right' things. Yet another topic.

Shutting Down the Internet - 'For Our Own Good'

One thing the Lemming does care about - a great deal - is the freedom of people who don't necessarily agree with government or cultural leaders to speak their minds. The Lemming thinks that sort of free exchange of ideas helps point out deficiencies in policies and beliefs. And, ideally at least, provides a way to correct them.

The Lemming also thinks that it's a good idea to correct problems - before they get to 'Tunisian' levels.

It's arguable that the president of Tunisia kept winning elections because he and his associates had a nice, well-managed country - where the common people were told what they needed to know, and 'protected' from ideas that might disturb them.

Just look at what happened when Information Age technology and the social connections that go with it stirred the waters. It's the Lemming's opinion that the incredible stink that bubbled to the surface when Twitter and other social media let Tunisians start poking around their own country

No wonder the Egyptian government essentially shut down Internet access for its subjects. The Lemming suspects that the folks who have gotten used to running Egypt like their jobs - and intend to keep things pretty much the way they have been.

Maintaining the status quo is easier, in the Lemming's opinion, if the masses are kept from getting information from unapproved sources - and from comparing notes.

That's Egypt. The Lemming would like to think that folks in America don't have to be concerned about having Internet access, and the free exchange of ideas that goes with it, taken away.

The Lemming would like to think that people never get sick or have accidents, too: but that's not the way it is.

"Internet 'Kill Switch' Legislation Back in Play"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (January 28, 2011)

"Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal's chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday.

"The resurgence of the so-called 'kill switch' legislation came the same day Egyptians faced an internet blackout designed to counter massive demonstrations in that country.

"The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later.

"The bill is designed to protect against 'significant' cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said...."

Maybe the Collins bill is a good idea.

Maybe giving the president power to keep the masses from communicating with each other online is important - 'in the interests of national security.'

Maybe there really are enough safeguards in the bill, to keep a president from deciding that disagreeing with White House policy was not in the interest of national security: and shutting down dissent.

Maybe.

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Lemming Tracks: What Works, What Sounds Good

This isn't a political blog.

On the other hand, the Lemming doesn't march in lockstep with the day's intellectual fashions. More about this: "About the Lemming."

This post isn't for the sensitive or conformist reader. There'll be two more today, so skipping this one shoudn't hurt.

Still with me? You've been warned.

'It Sounded Like a Good Idea'

A thought for the day:

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good."
Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional? (1993)

That's from a longer excerpt:

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."
Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional? (1993)

In both cases, from The Quotations Page.

The Lemming remembers the 'before' and 'after' Mr. Sowell cites. The 'good old days' weren't an idyllic time of peace, love, harmony and picket fences. They weren't just simply awful, either.

Mr. Sowell - in the Lemming's opinion - has a point.

The Lemming isn't quite as surprised that social engineers enjoyed such a long period of acceptance. They're in the same little subculture as traditional information gatekeepers. And that's another topic: "What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009).

Like this post? Tweet it: Or, not: your choice.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 21, 2010

FCC, Internet, Rules, Technology, and Business

"FCC Will Tame the Internet—Or Kill It"
Dennis Kneale, CNBC Media & Technology Editor, CNBC (June 21, 2010)

"For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet, freeing it to spread its kudzu-like tendrils into the global economy. And it worked.

"The FCC took a big step this week to end all of that. For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission proposes using a set of 75-year-old phone regulations to oversee the Net of the 21st century and have a say in the prices that companies like AT&T and Comcast can charge. And set rules for what traffic they must carry. (Comcast is acquiring a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal' CNBC's parent company. The deal is awaiting regulatory approval.)

"Some telecom execs say the FCC's agenda is downright radical. It could thwart high hopes for the wireless Internet...."

The CNBC article/op-ed focuses on the commercial & business aspects of this latest FCC action - naturally enough. The Lemming thinks that folks who like to use the Internet, either as viewers or content providers, should be interested.

Very interested.

The Rules Won't Let You? Re-Define Them

Back to the CNBC piece:

"...Two months ago the DC appeals court unanimously agreed: the FCC had no such authority.

"What to do? Make it up!

"To do that, the FCC proposes a nifty little change in definitions. It wants to re-classify the Internet and say it no longer is an 'information service'—which gets a light hand. Now the Net shall be called a 'telecommunications service'—a phone service, basically, that gets subjected (and subjugated) to a lot more government oversight...."

So the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill want to protect the masses from Big Internet? What could possibly go wrong?

See:I'm not entirely sure that I go along with (AT&T's chief executive) Randall Stephenson's argument that today's FCC move is archaic because it uses a 1934 regulation that applied to rotary dial phones. On the other hand, quite a lot has happened since 1934: and I get suspicious when someone in authority starts re-writing definitions. Particularly definitions used in regulations that affect what the rest of us will be allowed to see - and how we'll be allowed to see it.

This latest FCC effort isn't censorship: it's more of an attempt to stop 'Big Internet' from setting up more effective, faster, communications channels. For the good of the common citizens, I'm sure - but as a common citizen, I'm not at all convinced that making it harder to upgrade information technology's infrastructure is a good idea.

But then, I'm one of those folks who don't want to be protected from the 'wicked, wicked web' - which the Lemming has said before.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Churchill: Oh, the Cigar! Oh, the Horror!

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP
"Spot the difference: How today's airbrushing PC censors decided Churchill could do without his cigar"
MailOnline (UK) (June 15, 2010)

"The face is instantly familiar, the two-fingered salute unmistakable.

But are these actually the same photograph of Sir Winston Churchill?

In the original photograph the war leader has his cigar gripped firmly in the corner of his mouth.

But in the other image - currently greeting visitors to a London museum - his favourite smoke has been digitally extinguished.

Which is a little embarrassing for the staff at the charitable trust, because the photograph features on a giant poster hanging above the museum's main door.

So just who did pinch the great man's Havana?..."

There's a short list of folks who didn't play an obvious role in re-imagining Winston Churchill. So far, though, who should be given the - credit? - isn't at all clear:

"...But intriguingly the museum, which gives all profits to charity, declined to name who put together the display and, crucially, who enlarged the image for the poster...."

You'll have to read the rest of the article to get the MailOnline's take on this weirdness.


(from MailOnline, used w/o permission)
The doctored photo is the center top one: MailOnline's copy is larger than this thumbnail.

Winston Churchill? Never Heard of Him

Actually, I have. But given the emphasis on history that's been the norm for the last couple generations, a little background may be called for.

Winston Churchill wound up being Sir Winston Churchill before he died in 1965. He was England's Prime Minister during World War II. (those who haven't heard of that, either, will find a little about it in Churchill's bio)

When he took office, there was fairly good reason to think that German forces, carrying the German Chancellor's vision of a new and improved Europe with them, would shortly cross the English Channel and start remolding Great Britain into something acceptable to the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The British weren't, for the most part, all that keen on the prospect.

One of Churchill's best-known remarks, at least when they were generally known in the English-speaking world, was "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." That doesn't sound like the most uplifting thing to hear: but for a British public who had gotten used to hearing their leaders say the sort of thing that politicians do, it must have been a refreshing change of pace.

Germany didn't succeed in turning Europe into a fit place for 'Aryans,' by the way. But that's another story.

Naughty Winston / Nice Winston

That tidied-up photo of Winston Churchill reminds me of the way 'naughty' books were Bowdlerized in Victorian times; how General Custer wasn't portrayed as an ambitious doofus a half-century ago; and how important it was to keep up with the latest politically correct terminology the last time I did time in American academia.1

Let's take a look at Nice Winston and Naughty Winston.
Naughty Winston
I suppose I should have warned you. We're not used to seeing people smoking cigars, these days.

When Churchill was Prime Minister, we didn't know as much about the effects of chronic smoking on health. Well, on most people's health Winston Churchill lived into his nineties.

That isn't a peace sign he's making, by the way. Until the sixties, that two-fingered gesture meant 'V for victory.'

About smoking and health? There's a large body of evidence that smoking isn't a good idea. There are also some debatable claims, but for the most part folks who smoke stogies regularly don't live as long as Sir Winston.
Nice Winston
Credit where credit is due: whoever altered this photo did a pretty good job of making that cigar disappear.

I don't think it's a good idea to fake pictorial records like this - but from a technical point of view, that forgery was a good job.

What's the big deal? Let's take some of hypothetical examples from American history
George Washington
George Washington: first American president, among other things. And a dude who sported long hair.

Considering how hysterical 'real Americans' were about long hair on men, back in the sixties, it's a little surprising that George W. didn't get a makeover. I suppose they had more sense than to try.
Harriet Tubman
Harriet Tubman, you've probably heard of: if you're an American, and have been paying attention for the last few decades. She was an abolitionist, among other things.

If you're at all familiar with American culture: consider what would happen if someone took that photo, gave her a nose job and made her look like a white woman. Make that a white man. (I can - barely- imagine someone trying to justify a stunt like that on the basis of traditional role models.)

I would be rather upset, myself. She made a contribution to American history - and that's what she looked like.

Back to Winston Churchill: the Real One

Winston Churchill and the cigar? Okay, let's say cigars aren't particularly safe to smoke. Is that a good reason for making nice-nice with a photo? Winston Churchill helped pull the United Kingdom out of World War II. And he smoked a cigar.

Deal with it.

In a way, it's nice to know that do-gooder crackpots aren't an American monopoly.

Joking aside, The Lemming thinks there's an important lesson to be learned here. As the article says:

"The altered image was spotted by museum visitor David McAdam.

"He said: 'I pointed out this crude alteration to a museum steward who said she hadn't noticed the change before, nor had anyone else pointed it out.

" 'Viewing the now disfigured image reveals just how unhinged the vociferous anti-smoking lobby has become. So much for the notion that only communist tyrants airbrushed history.'..."

Sadly, it's not just the "vociferous anti-smoking lobby" - this sort of ideological distaste for unwanted realities goes back decades, and is by now a deeply cherished tradition in American academia, at least.

Related posts:More about traditional information gatekeepers, and the tribulations they're experiencing in the Information Age:
1 Times change - but people don't. Not all that much:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Lemming Tracks: BP, the Gulf of Mexico, Oil, and - Walruses?!

This could be filed under "YOU - HAVE - GOT - TO - BE - KIDDING!"

"BP's error-prone spill response plans overstate preparedness, understate dangers"
The Associated Press, via FOXNews (June 9 2010)

"Professor Peter Lutz is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.

"Under the heading 'sensitive biological resources,' the plan lists marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals. None lives anywhere near the Gulf.

"The names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are no longer in service.

"BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig are riddled with omissions and glaring errors, according to an Associated Press analysis that details how BP officials have pretty much been making it up as they go along. The lengthy plans approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one...."

It's not just British Petroleum. Some federal worker apparently signed off on a plan that seems to have included an explanation of how walruses in the Gulf of Mexico would be taken care of.

Walruses?!!

On the Gulf of Mexico?!!!

In a zoo, maybe. But you're as likely to see a wild walrus on the Alabama coast, as you are to see elephant herds roaming the plains of Minnesota. Or polar bears basking on the ice floes of Uganda.

How Could a Report Like That be Approved?

I suppose allowances should be made.

Federal employees are, I'm sure, mostly well-intentioned folks who are just trying to make a living. Over the decades, I've had pretty good experiences with federal employees.

However, the last time I applied for a job with the federal government, my application was weighed according to a well-defined point system. Some of the points came from how well my skills and background matched those of the job. But quite a few points came from factors that had nothing to do with job performance, like who my ancestors were.

BP, British Petroleum, is a British company. They probably employ Americans, but the outfit is, as the name says, British - with corporate headquarters in London. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they had entrusted a vital report like that "walruses of the Gulf" thing to an expert. A nice, trusted, British expert. Someone whose residence was a place like Hillingdon Heath or South Oxney.

A proper Englishman might not readily appreciate the difference in scale between the British Isles and North America. There is considerably more distinction between coastal Alaska and the Gulf shore of Louisiana than there there is between Liverpool and Southampton.

Or, maybe BP intentionally filed a bogus report made with a dead man's help. Assuming, correctly, that it would be rubber-stamped by some federal employee who can't, in practice, be fired.

It Gets Better - or Worse

Back to that AP article:

"...In the spill scenarios detailed in the documents, fish, marine mammals and birds escape serious harm; beaches remain pristine; water quality is only a temporary problem. And those are the projections for a leak about 10 times worse than what has been calculated for the ongoing disaster.

"Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, La., says there are '3,000 acres (of wetlands) where life as we know it is dead, and we continue to lose precious marshland every day.'

"There are other wildly false assumptions. BP's proposed method to calculate spill volume based on the darkness of the oil sheen is way off. The internationally accepted formula would produce estimates 100 times higher.

"The Gulf's loop current, which is projected to help eventually send oil hundreds of miles around Florida's southern tip and up the Atlantic coast, isn't mentioned in either plan.

"The website listed for Marine Spill Response Corp. - one of two firms that BP relies on for equipment to clean a spill - links to a defunct Japanese-language page...."

I have nothing against Japan, per se. I can easily imagine that a London-based company operating in one of the former colonies might reasonably decide to contract some of the work out to a Japanese company. That's not the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

It's like the dead man who's supposed to have helped BP write that report. Japanese companies that I'm aware of, which deal with people in English-speaking countries, maintain English-language websites. Which, as a rule, are still online.

Listing a website that isn't in English - and which disappears by the time someone takes a hard look at the report - is just plain not prudent.

Who is More Foolish? The Fool, or the Fool Who Relies on Him?

I can, sort of, see BP's point of view. Their executives may, based on observations of America's federal employees, assumed that any hooey would do, as long as there were lots of pages in a report. Still, I think it's apparent that relying on federal foolishness to maintain a business's operations was - not prudent.

British Petroleum's execs should have realized that they were in a comparatively high-risk business - and that most Americans are not fools.

Also, that when something went wrong, those Americans would find out. We're not living in the 'good old days' when embarrassing little mistakes could be politely ignored or smoothed over. The 'good old boys' network of information gatekeepers doesn't have the monopoly it once had.

Which is fine by me.

Maybe BP Really Didn't Get It

I'd still like to think that British Petroleum isn't run by clueless nitwits who had no idea that one of their drilling operations might not work quite as it should.

Given the way they're trying another, bigger, cap for the broken drilling site: they may really want to get control of the mess they're making. They may even succeed.

And, given that the gusher is under a mile of water, and is the sort of problem we didn't have a century ago, I'm quite willing to assume that the task is difficult.

But that report? Who did they think they were going to fool, in the long run?
More:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Lemming Tracks: BP, the Gulf Mess, Oil in the Water, and Another Leaky Well

It's fairly obvious that quite a few people living near the Gulf of Mexico are not having a good time. Gobs of oil on the beach and dirty pelicans are simply not festive.

The Lemming is on the same page as Jim Cantore's assessment of the Gulf oil leak: "Just sick about this."

No Rant about Big Oil or Foreign Investors?

It'd be nice, in a way, if we could sit in the shade of a sustainable tree and "live on love and honey." That hasn't been possible, at least as far back as the invention of agriculture, and I think there's a reason why our ancestors toiled and sacrificed so that we didn't have to live in a 'natural' environment.
It's Not a Perfect World: Or, Putting Out Fires
Not that today's world is perfect. We're in an awkward period, when the bugs are being worked out of quite a few new technologies. It's like the old gag: "Hundreds of thousands of years ago, Man learned how to make fire. Generations later, Man learned how to put out fires."

Or, in our case, how to cap gushing oil wells a mile under the ocean's surface.

My guess is that we'll have Thunderbirds-level technology to take care of things like the BP oil leak about the time that some of the new power sources come online.

And then, we'll start dealing with glitches in those technologies.

I'm not pessimistic, though: humanity has learned how to put out a whole lot of 'fires' over the ages.
Something Went Wrong: Duh
What about being angry at British Petroleum, or somebody?

Something went wrong. Obviously. But right now, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that British Petroleum intentionally killed 11 of its employees, destroyed a drilling operation, fouled the waters of the Gulf, and made itself open to derision and legal action.

My guess is that we'll eventually learn that someone in management - or an executive - decided to cut corners. Probably to save a few bucks. But that's just a guess at this point.

If that's what happened, it was an incredibly foolish, costly mistake. And BP will probably be expected to make good on its offer to pay for damages.

That's as much 'rant' as the Lemming will do right now.

Finally News About the Gulf Oil Mess

"Subsea oil plumes found 142 miles from rig"
Today, msnbc.com (June 8, 2010)

"Clouds of oil have been found drifting underwater in the Gulf of Mexico as far as 142 miles from the wrecked Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, government officials said Tuesday.

"At a briefing, Jane Lubchenko, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said that tests conducted at three sites by a University of South Florida research vessel confirmed oil as far as 3,300 feet below the surface.

"The oil was found 42 miles northeast of the well site and also 142 miles to the southeast.

"Lubchenko said the tests 'indicate there is definitely oil sub surface. It's in very low concentrations' of 0.5 parts per million.

"There have been reports of such underwater 'plumes' previously, but BP had questioned whether oil was actually forming below water. ["forming?!" The last I heard, oil "formed" a very long time ago, and some is now leaking into the Gulf.]

"On May 30, BP's CEO Tony Hayward denied the existence of oil plumes. 'The oil is on the surface. It's very difficult for oil to stay in a column,' he said. 'It wants to go to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity.'

"This is the first time the presence of oil plumes has been confirmed by a government agency.

"Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said while the term plume had been used widely for several weeks, it was technically incorrect. 'Cloud is a better term,' he said Tuesday.

"Allen added that one of the four vents on the containment cap was now closed.

"Lubchenco said the oil could be compared to ash from a volcano, with the liquid rising in a plume and then forming an underwater cloud that drifts about the currents, NBC reported...."
[emphasis mine]

I think it'd be nice if the concentration of oil in the Gulf waters was zero, rather than 0.5 parts per million. On the other hand, 0.5 parts per million isn't all that much. Let's put it this way: a stack of a million pennies would be 4,630 feet tall. ("Lesson Plan #: AELP-MEA0204," Jessica E. Diethrick, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, via The Educator's Reference Desk (February 3, 2001)) That's about 9/10 of a mile. Take one of the pennies and cut it in half. That's 0.5 parts per million of that stack of pennies.

Oil on the surface seems to be a bigger problem. I think we'll be seeing pictures in the news, of oily beaches and sick pelicans for quite a while.
Oh, Great: Another Leak
"Second Rig Unrelated to Deepwater Spill Reportedly Leaking in Gulf"
FOXNews (June 8, 2010)

"A second rig unrelated to the Deepwater Horizon spill has been leaking oil into the Gulf of Mexico since late April, according to reports that appear to show a clearly visible slick at the second location.

"The slick from the Ocean Saratoga rig appears to be several miles long off the coast of Louisiana, according to satellite images visible from space and posted on the website of Skytruth.org, a group that monitors environmental issues. The company that operates the rig has been working to plug the leak, which Skytruth reported on May 15, according to local news reports.

"Federal officials asked about the second leak in a morning briefing could not verify its existence, or provide details. But more information could be forthcoming shortly.

" 'We're going to get detailed information and make a statement later this afternoon,' said Admiral Thad Allen, the Coast Guard official who is the federal government's point person on the Gulf oil spill...."
[emphasis mine]

I don't envy Admiral Thad Allen. He's expected to have answers, to know what's going on - and he's probably limited to what he can get through 'official channels.' I've gotten the impression that the United States government is making an effort to enter the Information Age: but it's a bureaucracy, and those things don't change easily.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are zipping along with Google Earth, Skytruth.org, and whatever service you use to keep track of weather, finances, pop stars, or whatever you're interested in.

It's really not fair, I sometimes think, to expect admirals and members of Congress to have the sort of access to information that a teenager in, say, Poughkeepsie has. The admiral or legislator has more experience, and may be smarter: but that's another topic.

Back to that FOXNews article, and an informed view of why miracles haven't happened in the Gulf.

"...A member of the Coast Guard team that's trying to determine how much oil is still leaking told The Associated Press it's possible that estimates the team will generate could be a bit higher than current government estimates.

"The team member, University of Texas engineering professor Paul Bommer, said he understands why people might wonder why BP didn't try the cap sooner, especially now that it appears to be doing its job.

" 'Hindsight is always 20/20,' Bommer said. 'I think we have to give some credence to the notion they were trying to make things better without making things worse.'

"BP announced plans recently to swap out the current cap with a bigger one next month that can capture more oil, raising questions about why such plans weren't in place at first as a backup.

" 'I know it takes some time to fabricate these things,' Bommer said. 'It's not something you just go to Wal-Mart and buy.'..."
[emphasis mine]

Related posts:
More:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Internet Freedom: "What are the rules? Who decides?"

"The battle for Internet freedom "
networkworld.com (March 22, 2010)

"What are we permitted to post legally on the Internet? Who is responsible for the content of materials posted on Web sites? Two recent legal cases have highlighted the ongoing battles over control of information being posted on the Internet.

"In Italy, the government of neo-Fascist Silvio Berlusconi, the media magnate who detests the very idea of having anyone else in control of any news media, has drafted legislation to impose government examination of all videos before they can be uploaded to the Web. In a related case, an Italian judge convicted Google executives of violating a child's privacy rights because someone posted an abusive video on Google Video and Google staff didn't remove it fast enough to suit the judge.

"In contrast, in Iceland, the Wikileaks organization, devoted to open publication of information about government malfeasance, is receiving support from legislators...."

"...These cases raise questions about who decides what can legally be posted on Internet-accessible venues such as blogs and Web sites. If you, personally, run a blog where visitors can leave comments, are you immediately legally responsible for what total strangers post on your Web site? What if they post stolen software? What if a group of religious fanatics who seized power over an entire nation object to cartoons that you have posted on your Web site and issue death threats against you? What if a totalitarian regime objects to a description of its Dear Leader as a degenerate nitwit who lives in luxury while his people starve to death?..."

I think the column gives a pretty good overview of what's involved in people being allowed to express themselves online: and what's been happening lately.

If you like to see something other than photos of cute animals and how wonderful the beloved leaders are: you should probably read this.

Not that I've got anything against cute animals. ("Airbags and the Disapproving Rabbit" (March 23, 2010))

Finally, I think freedom is messy. But I like it.

Related posts:
A tip of the hat to Twitter_Tips, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this column.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Google, China, Censorship, Compromise: "Totally Wrong;" or, Not

"Google decides to stay in China after all"
ZDNet (March 23, 2010)

"In a compromise move, Google announced they will not abandon the China market after all. Instead, they will move their servers and domain name to Hong Kong, while keeping their developers and sales personnel where they are now on the mainland.

"Google's Hong Kong site will now offer uncensored search results in simplified Chinese for mainlanders, and in traditional Chinese for Hong Kong residents. Visitors to google.cn were already being redirected to google.com.hk on Tuesday morning. 'We believe this new approach [is] a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced,' said David Drummond, senior vice president of Corporate Development, on the Google blog Monday. 'It's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China.'

"Not surprisingly, China sees things differently. According to the official Xinhua News Agency the head of the Internet Bureau called Google's actions 'totally wrong,' and said that 'Google has violated its written promise it made when entering the Chinese market by stopping filtering on its searching service.' The official also denied responsibility for a recent spate of cyber attacks. '[We] express our discontent and indignation to Google for its unreasonable accusations and conduct.'..."

China: Inter-Dynastic Periods Never Were Very Tranquil

Before anything else, some background about my view of China. I've been a historian, and realize that the position of China in the 8th through early 20th century - particularly from about 1839 to 1949 - is an unusual one for the Middle Kingdom. Here in America, we've heard quite a lot about the Opium Wars (disgraceful situation): not so much of the efforts of the Abbasid Caliphate to hack their way into the minds and hearts of the Tang Dynasty. But that's another topic.

I think there's a good chance that China may resume its position as a major landmark on the world's cultural, economic, and political landscape - and not as the anachronistic hodge-podge of ancient culture, foreign ideologies, all run by people who (in my view) are desperately trying to reconcile their notion of an ideal state to awkward realities.
"...I'm glad to hear that Hong Kong isn't, ah, quite as 'protected' as the masses in the rest of China. I suspect that the party leaders in Beijing realize, at some level, that it wouldn't be a good idea to choke the intellectual and financial life there.

"But that's another topic.

"I'm somewhat impressed that Google's willing to buck the system in the only remaining major worker's paradise on the planet. Not terribly surprised, though: too many people know what's going on in China and Google has a reputation to lose. We don't always call it 'losing face' in the West, but the old-fashioned idea of having values and sticking by them apparently hasn't been entirely lost....
("Google Stops Censoring Service: And This is News" (March 22, 2010))
"There's More to China Than Censorship and Porno Spam
"...I'm still getting 'spam' comments - and they're still very often in Chinese.

"If I didn't know more about China's culture and history, it would be easy to get the impression that there wasn't much more to the country, than naughty chat rooms and young women just aching to be exploited.

"China's gotten through inter-dynastic periods before. I think the chances are pretty good that the Middle Kingdom will emerge from this one, too, with a stable and vibrant society. Which is definitely another topic."
(Google Pulling Out of China? I've Heard Worse News" (March 14, 2010))

Back to Google, China, and Managing the Masses

"Censorship" is a hot-button word for many people. Understandably. I'm against it, by the way.

I also realize that when one group has control of most information channels, there's a real temptation to filter out things that are embarrassing to the group that's on top - or doesn't fit their world view.

For example, I'm old enough to remember when rock music and women wearing slacks were - according to one group - Satanic; and the dying gurgles of McCarthyism.

That was then, this is now, and there's a different lot in charge. They don't seem to like opposition any more than most folks. Remember when cable television was "divisive?" I do. Now it's the Internet. And those upstart news networks. (More: "What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))

China's leaders are, in a way, in an unenviable position. They are committed to an ideology which is not only foreign to their culture, but in my view doesn't work very well. Not when the masses are human beings.1 It's not that I sympathize with them: but I think I understand why they don't want their subjects to know too much about the outside world.

It could be called "protecting the masses from foreign lies" or something else euphemistic. I think what China's leaders are doing is censorship.

And I think Google has done a pretty good job (for now) of balancing their reasonable (in my view) desire to make a profit and their (again in my view) admirable desire to not cooperate with state control of information. Under the circumstances, I think that China's official view that Google is "totally wrong" shows that the company is on the right track.

China isn't Alone

On the whole, I like living in America, but I'm not an American chauvinist. Over the years (decades, centuries) this country has been - imperfect. ("United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business," Another War-on-Terror Blog (July 3, 2008))

Not all that long ago, I think we had a very close call, when a strange alliance of interest groups had a shot at 'protecting' the rest of us from the Wicked, Wicked Web. ("Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship," Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 9, 2008))

When someone makes emotional appeals like 'save the children!,' I get - cautious. Which is definitely another topic.

Related posts:More, about my take on emotions, in other blogs:1 In my youth, both socialism and communism were attractive ideas. I soon realized that they didn't work well in human societies. Maybe if we were more like mole rats, psychologically.

They look good on paper, though.
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 22, 2010

Google Stops Censoring Service: And This is News

"Google Stops Censorship, Making Block by China Likely (Update1)"
Brian Womack, via Bloomberg (March 22, 2010)

" (Adds Chinese government comments in eighth paragraph.)...

"Google Inc., following through on a pledge to stop censoring search results in China, began serving mainland Chinese users via its unfiltered Hong Kong site, a move that could prompt the government to block the service.

"The company began redirecting traffic from its Google.cn site to Hong Kong, a part of the country that isn't subject to censorship laws. The move, which escalates a two- month dispute with the government over censorship, was 'totally wrong,' the official Xinhua news agency said.

"By relying on Hong Kong, Google is trying to find a way to fight censorship laws while still keeping a presence in mainland China. The approach may not work for long because the government will probably block the site, called Google.com.hk, just as it has before with the main Google.com page, said Ben Schachter, an analyst at Broadpoint AmTech Inc. in San Francisco...."

I'm glad to hear that Hong Kong isn't, ah, quite as 'protected' as the masses in the rest of China. I suspect that the party leaders in Beijing realize, at some level, that it wouldn't be a good idea to choke the intellectual and financial life there.

But that's another topic.

I'm somewhat impressed that Google's willing to buck the system in the only remaining major worker's paradise on the planet. Not terribly surprised, though: too many people know what's going on in China and Google has a reputation to lose. We don't always call it 'losing face' in the West, but the old-fashioned idea of having values and sticking by them apparently hasn't been entirely lost.

I'm getting off-topic. Following contemporary mores for a moment, I'll blame my environment: specifically a sleep-deprived weekend. ("Lemming Tracks: Back to Work" (March 22, 2010))

Besides, in strictly economic bottom-line terms, Google may have decided that it's better to lose a few bucks by being banned in China, than dropping a bundle in lost revenue everywhere else. Google is an 800-pound gorilla, but there are other online businesses with similar services.

These are interesting times.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Google Pulling Out of China? I've Heard Worse News

"Google '99.9%' Sure To Shut China Search Engine: Report"
Epicenter, Wired (March 13, 2010)

"Talks with China over censorship have reached an apparent impasse and Google, the world's largest search engine, is now '99.9 percent' certain to shut its Chinese search engine, the Financial Times said on Saturday.

"It said in a report on its website Google had drawn up detailed plans for closing its Chinese search engine.

"The newspaper cited a person familiar with the company's thinking as saying that, while a decision could be made very soon, Google was likely to take some time to follow through with its plans.

"That would be in order to bring about an orderly closure as the company takes steps to protect local employees from retaliation by authorities, it said...."

I have respect for the culture of China's people. The lot that's running the place now, not so much. It's likely enough that some of them think they're doing the right thing: and someone was sharp enough to not send in tanks at a recent demonstration. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 5, 2009))

China is, like it or not, where the powers that be killed 12 people who didn't like the way they were running things. It's all right, though, if you believe the (official) news: the dead guys were "mobsters." (Another War-on-Terror Blog (July 19, 2009)

Back to the Wired article:

"...Google shocked business and political circles in January when it threatened to pull out of China if it could not offer an unfiltered Chinese search engine. The threat came after cyber attacks originating from China on it and about 30 other firms...."

"Filtered" seems to be a polite way of saying that China's leaders wanted their subjects to see what the leaders wanted them to see - and nothing else. I think I understand their position. I don't agree with it, or think it's a good idea in the long run: but I think I understand.

More:

"...'If you don't respect Chinese laws, you are unfriendly and irresponsible, and the consequences will be on you,' China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology, Li Yizhong, told reporters on Friday in answer to a question on what China would do if Google.cn simply stopped filtering search results...."

That sounds familiar. Back in the sixties, quite a number of red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans felt much the same way about those "irresponsible" college students. A different set of people feel much the same way about journalists who don't say the 'right' things As one earnest fellow said recently, " 'truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies' ". (Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 9, 2010) Times change: people don't, so much. Which is another topic.

Shocked at Google's Decision? Not Really

I'm not as "shocked" as the Wired correspondent says "business and political circles" are about Google's decision. Not after the G-Mail hack became public knowledge - on top of years of cyberattacks on business and government networks around the world that 'just happened' to come from servers in China.

Quite a few people - even 'open minded' Americans - at least say that they believe freedom is a good idea, and that censorship isn't.

Given the image Google has tried to project - and to a great extent, in my opinion, has earned - of valuing the unimpeded flow of information, helping arrange for China's leaders to censor what their subjects could find online is simply bad for business.

I also think that the folks who run Google really believe what they say: and that the Chinese leadership's policies stuck in their craw.

Hacking Google's system didn't help China's bargaining position. America isn't China: and here it's not considered polite to steal from people you're doing business with.

As I said before, I think I understand the position taken by the People's Republic of China's leaders. They're committed to imposing a foreign philosophy on their subjects: many of whom have caught on that there are better ways to run a country.

If the leaders really believe that they're doing the right thing, and have enough self-righteousness, it sort of makes sense to try controlling what goes on inside the heads of their subjects - and killing the ones that can't be controlled.

Or at least making sure that they disappear.

There's More to China Than Censorship and Porno Spam

Not quite a month ago I changed the 'comment' policy on all but one of my blogs (February 16, 2010)

The reason was that I had started getting quite a few comments that were mostly links to - I think the polite term is 'adult entertainment.' Many were either partly or entirely in Chinese.

Since a fair number of folks who visit this blog probably understand that language, and may have my attitude toward pornography (I don't think it's a good idea), I wanted to both discourage spammers and shield people from the vulgar expressions.

I'm still getting 'spam' comments - and they're still very often in Chinese.

If I didn't know more about China's culture and history, it would be easy to get the impression that there wasn't much more to the country, than naughty chat rooms and young women just aching to be exploited.

China's gotten through inter-dynastic periods before. I think the chances are pretty good that the Middle Kingdom will emerge from this one, too. Which is definitely another topic.

Vaguely-related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, February 1, 2010

'Criticism is Terrorism:' Chavez and Twitter 'Terrorists'

" 'Terrorist' Twitter Threatens Hugo Chavez's Stranglehold on Media"
FOXNews (January 29, 2010)

"The greatest threat to Hugo Chavez's future just might be the World Wide Web.

"Fierce and growing protests over media freedom have left at least two students dead in Venezuela, and graphic images depicting violent tactics employed by the police there have started to flood the Internet.

"Police armed with tear gas and rubber bullets have left students bloodied and battered in Caracas and other cities during a week of protests over President Hugo Chavez's tightening gag on the opposition press.

"On Sunday, Chavez ordered five cable stations shut down for refusing to broadcast his frequent speeches, setting off nationwide demonstrations in a country already wracked by water shortages, electricity rationing, alarming crime rates and the plummeting value of its currency, the Bolivar...."

Before writing anything else, a sort of disclaimer: The Lemming isn't particularly apathetic. I just don't care, intensely, profoundly, irrationally, about the right things. Or, more accurately, left things.

The Venezuelan president's difficulty is, I think, one example of what's happening around the world. Traditional information gatekeepers no longer hold a monopoly on distributing facts and opinions.

Information Gatekeeper?

Quoting myself:
According to Princeton's WordNet, an gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:
"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)
So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information.
(Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))
Back in the 'good old days,' information gatekeepers in western nations included newspaper and magazine publishers, book publishers, educators, and more recently movie producers and radio and television broadcasters.

That was then.

President Chavez has pretty good control over many, if not most, of the traditional information gatekeepers. That's "control," not "cooperation." Some broadcasters wouldn't give the President air time, remember.

But he's finding that it's not the 'good old days' any more.

"...Elsewhere online, more than 80,000 people have joined a Facebook group, 'Chavez estas PONCHAO!' taunting the increasingly unpopular president with a slang term meaning 'Chavez, you struck out.'

"Chavez has fought back by declaring that 'using Twitter, the Internet (and) text messaging' to criticize or oppose his increasingly authoritarian regime 'is terrorism,' a comment that recalls the looming threats of his allies in Iran, whose bloody crackdown on physical and electronic dissent may be blazing a trail for the Latin strongman...."

I'm pretty sure that the quoted words of the Venezuelan president are a translation: but you get the point.

It Can't Happen Here?

I live in America, the land of the free and home of the brave, so nobody's going to brand opposition to federal policies or leaders as terrorism here? Right?

What can I say? Americans are human beings, just like everybody else. But that's another topic, for another blog. "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So," A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

The Lemming is "apathetic," remember.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Data-Driven Art: For an 'Overwhelmed' 'Hive Mind???'

"Decode Exhibition Points Way to Data-Driven Art"
Underwire, Wired (January 25, 2010)

"The cryptic works on display at London's Decode: Digital Design Sensations exhibition manipulate raw data as a kind of virtual pigment, finding form and fun amid the sensory overload that threatens to overwhelm the 21st-century hive mind.

"Several exhibition pieces showcased at Victoria and Albert Museum depend on human presence to produce their full effect. A motion-detecting eyeball, for examples, blinks each time a visitor blinks. In another piece, a video screen enables visitors to 'paint' smears of color through the power of their gyrations...."

"Overwhelmed?"

"Hive mind?!"

I'll get back to that.

Some of the data-driven art is - weird. That "motion-detecting eyeball," for example. Some looks like fun, like a virtual dandelion with attached hair dryer. And some is quite easy to look at, like "Flight Patterns," a video "based on 24 hours of airplane tracking data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration." The picture above is a thumbnail of a still from that video.

The Wired article explains why the Decode: Digital Design Sensations exhibition was put together:

"...'Decode is about demystifying the black art or magic of digital while showing that this work can be poetic, emotional and poignant,' show co-curator Shane R.J. Walter told Wired.com in an e-mail interview. Walter, creative director for the OneDotZero digital arts site, said the exhibition pieces 'highlight issues in our everyday lives such as the overabundance of information and how we deal with this through data visualization.' The Decode artists, he writes, 'use code as a material to work with just as sculptors work with clay.'..."

Okay: That's clear enough.

But, again:
  • "Overwhelmed?"
  • "Hive mind?"
  • "Demystifying the"
    • "Black art"
    • "Magic of digital?"
    • "Overabundance of information?"

"Overwhelmed" by Data? Are You Kidding??

Sure, I've read about how we have too much data to deal with: but I haven't experienced it myself. My problem, generally, is finding enough data, fast enough.

"Overwhelmed"? Hardly. For me, it's more "frustrated" at how comparatively little there is available sometimes, even now.

Sheets of paper with ink on them was pretty close to the ultimate in random-access data storage and retrieval system when I was growing up: and the codex form of books is still a pretty good technology.

But these days I'm able to get more data, faster, than before. Sure, a lot of what's online is tripe: but so is a lot of what's been published the old-fashioned way. That's where research and analysis skills come in.

I don't mind being able to get weather information straight from the National Weather Service: not relayed by some guy on the radio. Like yesterday, when I posted this in another blog:I suppose it's like me and art. I've drawn and painted since my teens: and started working with digital art as soon as the software got down into my price range.

Granted, having the sense of touch in six of my ten fingers go offline several years ago had an effect: but I was 'going digital' before that happened.

There's so much more you can do, faster, more precisely, with software. Like the light and shade in that illustration for Halloween I did for 2007.

And no: the computer isn't making the art, any more that Rembrandt's brushes made his paintings. It's a tool.

My oldest daughter, on the other hand, only uses digital art techniques when she has to. She much prefers traditional tools. I don't think she's "overwhelmed," though.

"Hive Mind?" What Hive Mind?

I suppose it's spooky, the realization that people can communicate with each other, all over the world, providing that they speak the same language. Even that's not a strict requirement, but it helps: the automatic translation tools are helpful, but come up with gibberish fairly often. They have artificial intelligence, but not very.

Where was I? Communication. People. Spooky. Right.

This isn't the 'good old days,' where a few well-heeled people were able to travel around and gawk at the natives, and write about their experiences for the benefit of others of the better sort.

Quite a lot has changed.

Literacy isn't the rarity it was, not all that long ago. For America, about 99% of folks 16 years old and up can read and write. Not well, maybe, always,: but we can. It's 99% for Japan, too. We could do better, of course. Liechtenstein as a literacy rate of 100%.

Television was a 'threat to individuality' in my younger days. Because, I suppose, millions of people could be watching the same show at the same time.

Then came the Internet and the Web - why, these days, just about anybody can take pictures, write - and get noticed. If they've got something to say, there's a good chance that many others will notice them.

But is that a "hive mind?" Maybe not.

I see it as an opportunity for a great many people to get together and share ideas.

I'm not "overwhelmed," either.

Like I wrote, in another blog:

"Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power"

"Many of the ideas put forward online don't pass the 'stink test,' and fail in the marketplace of ideas. Others succeed.

"The great thing about the Information Age is that people can publish their ideas. Even if those ideas don't sit well with
  • "Established academics
  • "Yankee gentlemen
  • "Publishing executives
"To someone who became comfortable with the well-regulated flow of information that a previous generation experienced, today's world of blogs and uncontrolled websites must seem like chaos.

"I like it.

"I also like individual freedom.

"And I like the way that the Information Age has opened by giving 'power to the people:' the power of individuals to enter the marketplace of ideas, even if their views aren't approved by the old gatekeepers...."
(Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power, in "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People," Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 27, 2008))

Data-Driven Art? Cool!

Although I don't know how many people are really "overwhelmed" by the "hive mind," Decode: Digital Design Sensations looks like a lot of fun.

And probably is a taste of what my grandchildren will think is 'the same old thing.'

The technology probably won't be quite the same, of course. Think about it: how long has it been, since you heard a theremin being played?

Related post:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Twitter, Haiti and a Global Community

"Twitter's human touch amid the horror of Haiti"
Times Online (January 13, 2010)

"Minutes after last night's devastating earthquake in Haiti, Twitter and other social networking sites were abuzz with witness accounts, photographs and appeals for help.

"Wyclef Jean, the Haitian-born musician and record producer – who used much of the wealth generated by the success of the band The Fugees to set up Yele Haiti, a charity to improve living conditions in the Caribbean country – was among the first to launch an appeal for financial aid through Twitter. In his latest tweet, he is waiting for a plane to take him to Haiti via the Dominican Republic.

"Jean's appeal uses a reverse-charge text number for users in the United States. His Twitter page has 1.3 million followers.

"In Haiti itself, Carel Pedre, a local celebrity DJ and TV presenter, has been offering his eyewitness reports to international news organisations such as the BBC and CNN via his Twitter feed. His images of the aftermath of the disaster have been picked up by the Associated Press...."

As a rule, I don't add links from the originals of my excerpts. What's going on in Haiti seemed to warrant a bit of extra attention.

Another point of view:

"Haiti Earthquake Twitter Photos Expose Quake Devastation"
Associated Content News (January 13, 2010)

"The Haiti earthquake is a Twitter hot topic as users provide devastating photos. Haiti earthquake Twitter photos have put the tragedy front and center becauseTwitter is one of the few communication tools left over there. After the 7.0 quake struck yesterday, most power and services were knocked out, but the people still had other means to show what happened. The Haiti earthquake Twitter pictures and accounts have shown the world the horror that they must recover from.

"The first accounts of the powerful earthquake came from Twitter as witnesses and others in the area used it to break the news. Although most of the power in Haiti is out, pictures from mobile phones and other sources have gotten online. Thanks to Twitter, these pictures are being posted and spread through the online media world...."

"...The Haiti earthquake may have been a gigantic tragedy, but Twitter is enjoying the fruits of it. Thanks in part to this story, the social network had its most traffic ever yesterday. Of course, they were also helped by the Mark McGwire story, the Leno vs. O'Brien late night wars, and Lane Kiffin going to USC. But this quake helped put them over the top.

"That is a cynical way to look at things. However, the Haiti earthquake Twitter traffic has had more lasting benefits. With these pictures, and a look at how the people are coping, online media has out scooped the regular press once again. In addition, with the likes of Jean spreading their efforts online, more awareness and help can be given out...."

I didn't know where the Associated Content writer was going with that article. There's a tendency, I've noticed, for people to assume that 'those people over there' act from strictly selfish motives. And, of course, that anything said or done in connection with a disaster like the one Haiti's experience is to be viewed cynically.

I agree with those last two sentences: "With these pictures, and a look at how the people are coping, online media has out scooped the regular press once again. In addition, with the likes of Jean spreading their efforts online, more awareness and help can be given out."

Information technology like the Internet has changed the rules. Back in the "good old days," when I was growing up, Americans read the newspaper and magazines, and listened to the radio to learn what was happening around the world. I remember what a huge difference the evening news on television made, when it arrived.

The "good old days"? I don't ever want to go back. It was a time when a relatively small, select number of information gatekeepers decided what "the masses" should see.

That was then.

Now, a much wider swath of humanity can make their voices heard. Twittering from Haiti is just part of what's developing. And I think it's driving some of the traditional information gatekeepers bonkers. Which is another topic. ("What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))

As a case-in-point, I live in a small town in central Minnesota: but my circle of online friends and acquaintances include people who live on different continents. In some cases, I don't know where they live. And, although it's interesting, I don't need to know: They're part of the same online communities I belong to.

No, this is definitely not "the good old days."

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Net Neutrality, Comcast, the FCC, Censorship and Freedom

"Court to FCC: You Don't Have Power to Enforce Net Neutrality"
Threat Level | privacy, crime and security online, Wired (January 8, 2010)

"A federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission's authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments from the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agency's 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.

"The move was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content...."

It seems to me that Comcast's daft practice of "sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent" is at least as much as an attempt to keep the company from shooting itself in the foot, as maintaining "net neutrality."

If I was a Comcast customer (I'm not, happily), I'd be looking at their competitors' packages right now. Even here in the heart of darkest Minnesota, we've got a reasonable selection of information service providers. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who wouldn't appreciate having his online communications hobbled: and secrets are getting really hard to keep, these days.

Can't say that I'm sorry about that.

Comcast's efforts to manage their customers out the door is in the news internationally: there's a link to the Reuters article at the end of this post.

I suppose Comcast's faking of signals to BitTorrent users comes under the heading of "net neutrality," if Comcast was sabotaging one sort of customer more than another.

Why Aren't I Cheering On the Forces of Net Neutrality and the American Way?

I remember enjoying the "Adventures of Superman," and how each episode's introduction described this "...strange visitor from another planet..." who "...fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way." (IMDB)

Of course, I was six or seven at the time.

Events in the sixties encouraged me to carefully evaluate my estimation of established institutions: American and otherwise. As a result, I didn't have a deep and abiding trust in 'the establishment' forty years ago. And I don't now.

I understand why America is one of the countries people try to break into, rather than the other way around: but I've learned to be a trifle cautious in my assumptions.

Not all that long ago, by my standards, the World Wide Web became a new global phenomenon, offering people information from around the world. It also made pornography and vitriolic screeds available: nothing new in that content, but like television a few decades earlier, the same old stuff looked new because the medium was new.

An odd coalition of fundamentalists and feminists tried to protect children and sensitive people from the Wicked, Wicked Web. Don't get me wrong: I don't approve of either pornography or what's called "hate speech."

On the other hand, I like freedom of speech. When Bible-thumpers and bra-burners joined forces in an effort to create a federal agency whose purpose would be to determine what the American public was allowed to see, say, and hear: I was concerned.

Happily, we're not 'protected' from ideas that don't meet with official approval today: but that was a close call. 'Save the children' can be an effective emotional appeal.

"Net neutrality" - if it really means a level playing field, even for people who aren't in the established power structures, sounds like a good idea. What concerns me is the possibility that a "neutrality" could be imposed, in which some ideas were more neutral than others.

It wouldn't be censorship, of course: just, well, keeping things "neutral."
"I think its clear that traditional information gatekeepers like journalists no longer have a near-monopoly on determining what the rest of us are allowed to see and hear.

"That kind of freedom is messy and demands effort, but I think it's worth it."
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)) The Quotations Page
(Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 24, 2009))
Somewhat-related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory