People and Communications

I've already written about privacy in the context of Facebook and social networks/social media in general (What's Your Privacy Worth?), but it seems like it's time to revisit it.

Recent articles by the BBC (Facebook criticised over privacy) and Scotland's The Herald (Facebook changes are a threat to online users’ privacy, say critics) are pretty much limited to commentary by Computeractive's Tom Royal. And in an odd twist, Tom Royal doesn't appear to have written about it for Computeractive. But then, he's the deputy editor.

The last article on Computeractive magazine's site referencing Facebook is Facebook unveils new privacy options (written by Shaun Nichols) points out that there has been previous controversy and links to the Facebook Chief Privacy Officer (Chris Kelly) blog post, Improving Sharing Through Control, Simplicity and Connection. { Read more }

I just got done watching Clay Shirky talk about how cellphones, twitter and Facebook can make history - the video is on the left if you have about a little over 17 minutes to kill. And everything that Clay Shirky said was true. But he left out a few things that I believe are important to balance the 'social media is the best thing since swiss cheese' hypothesis.

Certainly, social media as it is implemented now allows greater potential for spreading thoughts, ideas and kittens on treadmills (watch the video). It can help cover news events and many other things - but there is also a down side to the use of such technology. For example, it has the power to misinform and misinform at a rate that is virtually unstoppable. This point was made by the article, Swine flu: Twitter's power to misinform, but it should be apparent. That it is largely unspoken does not imply that it is apparent. I'm sure that if you asked anyone who advocates social media in a manner that makes it look like the second coming of a religious figure they will admit that things can go wrong. { Read more }

Steve Nelson wrote a nice and succinct piece on those that have their Facebook status updated by Twitter. I call them squawks, as in they are annoying tweets.

The way I deal with squawking is rather simple. I hide the squawker from my feeds - in that way I don't have to deal with their Twitterese nonsense (and most of it is nonsense for those of us not in the conversation). Sure, they may have a few gems hidden in there.

But who wants to spend the time finding them?

So the right way to deal with squawking is... squelching. Squawk at your own risk; that gem in the rough or true diamond you write will not be seen if you squawk.

The New York Times article from last week, The Day Facebook Changed: Messages to Become Public by Default (Hat tip to Simon Fraser) is a must-read by anyone who uses Facebook - or any other social media. Facebook has already updated it's blog post, adding this to it:

UPDATE on June 24: We've received some questions in the comments about default privacy settings for this beta. Nothing has changed with your default privacy settings. The beta is only open to people who already chose to set their profile and status privacy to "Everyone." For those people, the default for sharing from the Publisher will be the same. If you have your default privacy set to anything else—such as "Friends and Networks" or "Friends Only"—you are not part of this beta.

But the cat is out of the bag. Meow. Hiss.

As the New York Times article points out, information collected from Facebook applications and Facebook itself can be sold because, in your need to complete that whacky quiz, you gave people the rights to access that information. The sound of your privacy, and the privacy of those around you, goes away with the muted sound of your mouse-click. Click.

From the NY Times article:

Best Case { Read more }

I accidentally summarized my thoughts on the digital divide in a response I sent to a few people, so I figured I'd post it publicly because it's the best way I've been able to explain it. Adapted for this post so it makes sense outside the context.

In the trenches, [advancing technology on the bleeding edge] only serves as distraction. The main problems revolve around infrastructure, infrastructural policy, international trade agreements and 'intellectual property' (copyright and patents).

The down side of advancing technology is that by the time it's implemented for the developed nations, the developing nations will be wearing the one-size-fits-none hand-me-downs as they always have because no one has really focused on the problems I mentioned above. So the cycle continues.

That's the digital divide. If you replace 'developing nation' with any disadvantaged group and replace 'developed nation' with any group at advantage, you'll get the spirit of it right.

It's all well and good to try to work on the digital divide. But it's an odd position to be in when the political entity you are associated with has policies and trade agreements that work against you. One would think that working on those policies would make sense.

When I worked in the ER, we corpsman would love when someone with a laceration came in because we loved suturing. We'd focus intently on the laceration because that's what we wanted to fix. But if the person was having a heart attack, what they needed most was CPR. So we did CPR. Unfortunately, in the real world, people tend to just want to fix the lacerations. And that makes them a part of the digital divide, whether intentionally or not.

Well, I imagine I'll be dropped from a few circles after writing that. Oh well. It's true.

Through Farcebook, I found a nice image that I wished I could share with you. You can see it here - it is especially poignant about the media hype surrounding the death of celebrities. About how the media overdoes it. About how people like myself just tune it out because it is so transparent... but we know that there's really glass there.

And then, to go to page where the image is and see it handicapped by an odd combination of LiveJournal, inability to embed and a lack of open content license... let's just say that there's a question as to the copyright of the image I saw on Farcebook. And it works against the creator of the image.

If you're not on LiveJournal, you can comment anonymously, but what's the point?

Sometimes people really limit their own work that they could be getting more credit for. And it's funny in a very sad way when they make the point of the media doing the exact opposite with content that is processed for the mainstream.

Ahh well.

When I read Ramphal Calls For 'Inspired' CARICOM leadership, I immediately recalled what I wrote in an annual review of a junior software developer that was part of my development team.

I wrote, "XYZ would be a better team player if XYZ were more capable of working on his own."

Looking back, I stand by those words. He was a nice enough person, but he spent most of his time getting direction from other people and thus slowing the team down. He'd worn off his 'new team member' smell, so it wasn't that he was catching up. It was that he wasn't pulling his weight, and everyone on the team knew it. As the technical lead, I got my ears filled with it even by the project manager.

And that's how I view CARICOM. Maybe it's that I'm in Trinidad and Tobago and I see the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Patrick Manning, and the other side of the khaki pants, Basdeo Panday, being as ineffective as fishnet being used for diapers and then reading what Manning is speaking of at CARICOM. The Jamaican angles that I have read seem to reveal a similar issue, but I'm not sure.

But I think that is CARICOM's problem: As individual nations, the problems that plague CARICOM and it's many initiatives is mired by the lack of ability of the individual nations. This falls down to the people who elect the governments and the systems by which the governments are elected and implemented.

So that's what I think, right now. I'd love to be wrong.

Show me.

When Apple advocates and, dare I write, extremists talk about how superior the Apple product line is - I typically have to agree from a technology perspective. But when the price is included, Apple breaks banks and could be seen as part of the problem with regard to the digital divide. And the arguments of Apple advocates tend to put them in the same category as the Microsoft advocates - something which should disturb. The digital Jerusalem need not be so polarized in technology use, but it is. And I'm an amused Linux user.

So when DailyTech writes Apple Makes Over $400 Profit Per 16 GB IPhone, $500 Per 32 GB Model, I laugh. In a world that Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer would be proud of ('I'll let you whitewash the fence for a few bucks'), the cost of advocating Apple becomes apparent:

...At a minimum, before shipping, R&D, etc., it appears Apple is making a whopping $422 profit on every $178 (manufacturing cost) phone sold. That incredible profit margin may be cut into a bit by the aforementioned expenses of transportation, R&D, advertising, and other costs, but likely remains quite impressive at the end of the day. Even better for Apple, it likely enjoys an even larger profit on the $699 32 GB iPhone 3G S, as the only difference is a marginally more expensive (likely $20 or less) NAND chip...

I'm not against Apple making money - far from it, I wish I owned some stock so I could cash in on the technology extremism that supports Apple. If people are willing to pay it, so be it - cash in. And let them advocate your brand at every turn. { Read more }