Two posts that hint toward a shaky future for Facebook.
Who Needs Another Social Network? (Bits Blog)
Did Microsoft Overpay for Its Facebook Stake? (DealBook Blog)
Earlier: Facebook: destined for obscurity?
---
Charter Communications joins the band of Internet service providers spying on their users. Also, computer security expert Bruce Schneier on the importance of data privacy.
Charter to Snoop on Broadband Customers' Web Histories for Ad Networks (Threat Level Blog)
Can Charter Broadband Customers Really Opt-Out of Spying? Maybe Not (Threat Level Blog)
Our Data, Ourselves (Wired)
Earlier: The end of privacy
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18
Monday, April 21
Facebook: destined for obscurity?
Everywhere and nowhere (Economist)
Although I love Facebook, and have always felt that they offer the premier online social networking tool, my gut tells me that as a company they may very well fail. Part of the reason is that they are a one-trick pony: They do one thing, and they do it really well. But what's the likelihood that in ten years (or five even), they will still be the dominant player in the social networking arena? Contrast that with Google, who is still king of online searching, but at the same time seems to be releasing a new product every other week in an attempt to diversify their offerings.
This very smart Economist article adds some meat to my argument. It asserts that closed social networking tools (like Facebook), which force you to visit their website and use their specific tools to communicate with your friends, are "a drag" and will ultimately lose out to "open social networks." These open networks would be integrated into your core Internet tools (such as e-mail), would infer your "social graph" from the actions you already take (who you e-mail the most, or how you tag people in your address book), and would be transparent and work almost automatically. In short, they would remove the annoying and needless complexity of managing your online social life (your profile, photos, groups, friend lists, etc.) through mulitple websites.
There are already existing tools (such as FriendFeed) which can aggregate your online life into one space, but these tools do nothing to break down the barriers between the various closed social networks. Something more revolutionary is needed, and I have no doubt that it is technologically feasible.
The only question is: Who will be the one to innovate, and who will fold as a result?
Although I love Facebook, and have always felt that they offer the premier online social networking tool, my gut tells me that as a company they may very well fail. Part of the reason is that they are a one-trick pony: They do one thing, and they do it really well. But what's the likelihood that in ten years (or five even), they will still be the dominant player in the social networking arena? Contrast that with Google, who is still king of online searching, but at the same time seems to be releasing a new product every other week in an attempt to diversify their offerings.
This very smart Economist article adds some meat to my argument. It asserts that closed social networking tools (like Facebook), which force you to visit their website and use their specific tools to communicate with your friends, are "a drag" and will ultimately lose out to "open social networks." These open networks would be integrated into your core Internet tools (such as e-mail), would infer your "social graph" from the actions you already take (who you e-mail the most, or how you tag people in your address book), and would be transparent and work almost automatically. In short, they would remove the annoying and needless complexity of managing your online social life (your profile, photos, groups, friend lists, etc.) through mulitple websites.
There are already existing tools (such as FriendFeed) which can aggregate your online life into one space, but these tools do nothing to break down the barriers between the various closed social networks. Something more revolutionary is needed, and I have no doubt that it is technologically feasible.
The only question is: Who will be the one to innovate, and who will fold as a result?
Tuesday, March 25
The end of privacy
A Company Promises the Deepest Data Mining Yet (New York Times)
An Inalienable Right to Privacy (Coding Horror)
Is privacy possible in the digital age? Privacy through obscurity used to be a great strategy; the idea was that there are so many people "out there" that there's virtually no chance you will be noticed. And even if you were noticed, even if information was being kept about you, what are the odds that the information from various sources would be consolidated into one place? Who cares if you download porn, or search the Internet for information about depression, or write love notes to your secret girlfriend? And what are the chances that the information will fall into the hands of your boss, your spouse, or your insurance company?
In the digital age, I'm sad to say that privacy through obscurity has thoroughly collapsed. Once companies realized a few years ago that consumers will rarely pay for content on the Internet, the focus shifted to targeted ads as the primary way to generate revenue on the Internet. And with that shift, there has been a mad dash to collect and consolidate as much information as possible about every Internet user. There is a lot of money to be made by gathering as much information as possible about you and selling that information to every company that might want to market to you.
This short New York Times piece describes the efforts of one such company, Phorm, that has developed a tool to track every single action you take on the Internet. They are trying to negotiate deals with major broadband Internet providers in the U.S., such that their tool will be used by the Internet provider to generate massive amounts of data about each of its users, which will then be sold to third parties. Three major Internet service providers in Britain have already signed on with Phorm, which gives Phorm access to the surfing habits of 70% of British households with broadband.
This technology is not new, for sure: Spyware and other covert mechanisms for tracking your Internet activity have existed for many years. However, participation by Internet service providers represents a fundamental shift in the power and scope of this technology.
I can only begin to address the implications of technology that can compile a profile of your complete Internet behavior, especially when that profile will be connected to and meshed with the other digital data that exists about you. Unquestionably, your personal data will be sold without your permission. It will make its way to individuals and companies that you wish didn't have access to that data. It will be lost (probably without your knowledge), it will be filled with errors (which you probably won't be able to correct), and it will be sold on the black market. Imagine if you could purchase a file listing the complete Internet habits of any individual for a small price. Would you buy it, to learn about your potential mate, or to get back at your ex? Would your potential employer buy it, to learn about your personal habits? Would your insurance company buy it, to see if you have written any emails about a medical condition? This is just the beginning.
Still not convinced that your privacy is worth protecting? This post on Coding Horror argues that you should protect your privacy, even if you don't think you have anything to hide.
An Inalienable Right to Privacy (Coding Horror)
Is privacy possible in the digital age? Privacy through obscurity used to be a great strategy; the idea was that there are so many people "out there" that there's virtually no chance you will be noticed. And even if you were noticed, even if information was being kept about you, what are the odds that the information from various sources would be consolidated into one place? Who cares if you download porn, or search the Internet for information about depression, or write love notes to your secret girlfriend? And what are the chances that the information will fall into the hands of your boss, your spouse, or your insurance company?
In the digital age, I'm sad to say that privacy through obscurity has thoroughly collapsed. Once companies realized a few years ago that consumers will rarely pay for content on the Internet, the focus shifted to targeted ads as the primary way to generate revenue on the Internet. And with that shift, there has been a mad dash to collect and consolidate as much information as possible about every Internet user. There is a lot of money to be made by gathering as much information as possible about you and selling that information to every company that might want to market to you.
This short New York Times piece describes the efforts of one such company, Phorm, that has developed a tool to track every single action you take on the Internet. They are trying to negotiate deals with major broadband Internet providers in the U.S., such that their tool will be used by the Internet provider to generate massive amounts of data about each of its users, which will then be sold to third parties. Three major Internet service providers in Britain have already signed on with Phorm, which gives Phorm access to the surfing habits of 70% of British households with broadband.
This technology is not new, for sure: Spyware and other covert mechanisms for tracking your Internet activity have existed for many years. However, participation by Internet service providers represents a fundamental shift in the power and scope of this technology.
I can only begin to address the implications of technology that can compile a profile of your complete Internet behavior, especially when that profile will be connected to and meshed with the other digital data that exists about you. Unquestionably, your personal data will be sold without your permission. It will make its way to individuals and companies that you wish didn't have access to that data. It will be lost (probably without your knowledge), it will be filled with errors (which you probably won't be able to correct), and it will be sold on the black market. Imagine if you could purchase a file listing the complete Internet habits of any individual for a small price. Would you buy it, to learn about your potential mate, or to get back at your ex? Would your potential employer buy it, to learn about your personal habits? Would your insurance company buy it, to see if you have written any emails about a medical condition? This is just the beginning.
Still not convinced that your privacy is worth protecting? This post on Coding Horror argues that you should protect your privacy, even if you don't think you have anything to hide.
Sunday, March 9
Searching for answers
The Most Depressing Day of the Year (TIME)
Dangers (xkcd)
Google is such a fun tool. Besides its pure search engine capabilities (helping you to find the web pages you're looking for), it has amassed an extraordinary amount of data that is right at your fingertips. One way to mine the data that Google has captured is to look at it as a "voting" mechanism: Use the number of search results for a given query as a proxy for a vote in favor of that idea.
Can't decide whether to spell "traveling" with one 'L' or two? Search for both variations, and see which one has more results in Google. Not sure whether author X or author Y is the true source of a quote? See which author has more search results linked to that quote. It's not the most rigorous scientific method, but it is quick and has the benefit of drawing from a vast data source.
The TIME article takes a look at this phenomenon, as does this fun comic from xkcd (my favorite webcomic).
Dangers (xkcd)
Google is such a fun tool. Besides its pure search engine capabilities (helping you to find the web pages you're looking for), it has amassed an extraordinary amount of data that is right at your fingertips. One way to mine the data that Google has captured is to look at it as a "voting" mechanism: Use the number of search results for a given query as a proxy for a vote in favor of that idea.
Can't decide whether to spell "traveling" with one 'L' or two? Search for both variations, and see which one has more results in Google. Not sure whether author X or author Y is the true source of a quote? See which author has more search results linked to that quote. It's not the most rigorous scientific method, but it is quick and has the benefit of drawing from a vast data source.
The TIME article takes a look at this phenomenon, as does this fun comic from xkcd (my favorite webcomic).
Monday, March 3
The future of voting :(
One way not to conduct Internet voting (The Risks Digest)
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early (The Onion)
As the Internet and technology become more and more ingrained into our daily lives, it's inevitable that there will be an increased demand for Internet voting as part of our elections. Certainly, Internet voting could deliver both cost savings (for the government) and convenience (for the voter); it would seem to be a technology worth exploring.
I was curious to hear that Democrats Abroad, the organization that represents Democrats living outside the U.S., was holding a "Global Primary" (which awards actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention) in which Internet voting was offered as an option. While the mainstream news focused on Obama's decisive win in the Global Primary, I focused my attention on the technology, and was not surprised to find that the "whole process was neither secure nor well run".
Voting technology in the U.S. continues to disappointment me, lagging leaps and bounds behind other high-tech industries that show evidence of constant innovation. Thankfully, the solutions are out there, and I am hopeful that all levels of government will develop the political will to ensure that our elections are both secure and accurate.
In the meantime, the "Onion News Network" delivered one of the funniest satires of our electoral process that I have ever seen.
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early (The Onion)
As the Internet and technology become more and more ingrained into our daily lives, it's inevitable that there will be an increased demand for Internet voting as part of our elections. Certainly, Internet voting could deliver both cost savings (for the government) and convenience (for the voter); it would seem to be a technology worth exploring.
I was curious to hear that Democrats Abroad, the organization that represents Democrats living outside the U.S., was holding a "Global Primary" (which awards actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention) in which Internet voting was offered as an option. While the mainstream news focused on Obama's decisive win in the Global Primary, I focused my attention on the technology, and was not surprised to find that the "whole process was neither secure nor well run".
Voting technology in the U.S. continues to disappointment me, lagging leaps and bounds behind other high-tech industries that show evidence of constant innovation. Thankfully, the solutions are out there, and I am hopeful that all levels of government will develop the political will to ensure that our elections are both secure and accurate.
In the meantime, the "Onion News Network" delivered one of the funniest satires of our electoral process that I have ever seen.
Tuesday, January 15
An alternative reality
Even in a Virtual World, 'Stuff' Matters (New York Times)
Ever since I heard about the growing popularity of Second Life and other online virtual worlds, I have been curious about what attracts people to them and what exactly you "do" there. This New York Times article is easily the most interesting and accessible one I have read on the topic, and it provides some great insights into how the real world can (unexpectedly) be reflected in a virtual world.
Ever since I heard about the growing popularity of Second Life and other online virtual worlds, I have been curious about what attracts people to them and what exactly you "do" there. This New York Times article is easily the most interesting and accessible one I have read on the topic, and it provides some great insights into how the real world can (unexpectedly) be reflected in a virtual world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
