Sean Ragan says: "I was thinking about writing an adult Choose Your Own Adventure book so I made a visual map of my favorite CYOA book from when I was a kid. It's a directed graph with a node for each page and arrows indicating choices/page jumps." Link

blueton tips us to a brief story about recent revelations from the Pentagon which indicate that the attack on their computer network in June 2007 was more serious than they originally claimed. A DoD official recently remarked that the hackers were able to obtain an "amazing amount" of data. We previously discussed rumors that the Chinese People's Liberation Army was behind the attack. CNN has an article about Chinese hackers who claim to have successfully stolen information from the Pentagon. Quoting Ars Technica: "The intrusion was first detected during an IT restructuring that was underway at the time. By the time it was detected, malicious code had been in the system for at least two months, and was propagating via a known Windows exploit. The bug spread itself by e-mailing malicious payloads from one system on the network to another."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Chris says: "Here's interview with the governer of Montana on the Real ID that's being forced down states' throats by Homeland Security.

"This is the funniest interview I've heard with an elected politician on a security-related issue. He completely calls the Federal Government on their bluff, and completely dismantles the usefulness of this act. Please, start with the first minute. It gets better from there."

"We're putting up with the federal government on so many fronts, and nearly every month they come out with another hare-brained scheme ... to tell us that our life is going to be better if we just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation. And we usually just play along for a while. We ignore 'em for as long as we can. We try not to bring it to a head but if it comes to a head we found that it's best to tell 'em to go to Hell and run the state you wanna run your state.

Unfortunately this time around they've really got a hare-brained scheme... almost all those hijackers on 9/11 would have qualified for a Real ID."

Link

Here's a roundup of movie-download services -- Apple TV, Vudu, Movielink, Unbox -- all of which have underperformed expectations. This won't come as a surprise to Techdirt readers, as we've panned these products before. And the reasons they've flopped are frankly pretty obvious: high prices, restrictive DRM, and no easy way to move videos to the device of your choice. I won't re-hash those arguments, but I think it's interesting to compare the anemic development of the digital video marketplace with the rapid development of digital audio a decade ago. The fundamental difference is that Hollywood kept a tight grip on the digital video market, while the DMCA didn't come along soon enough to give the music industry control over digital music. They tried to outlaw the MP3 player, but because there was no DRM involved, they lost in court, and the result was the flowering of innovation that led to the iPod and other MP3-based devices.

There's still something of a mystery here, though: most video download services are not just bad but spectacularly bad. For example, Hollywood sunk $100 million into Movielink before giving up and selling the whole mess to BlockBuster for $20 million. Even assuming that Hollywood wants to limit how its content is used, it's obviously not in their interests to make things this crippled. So what's going on? I think a key insight is offered by an excellent paper that Columbia law professor Tim Wu wrote a couple of years ago called "Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Decentralized Decisions." Wu's basic insight is that too much centralization of control over any one part of the economy can lead to poor decision-making. In an extreme case, such as Soviet Russia, a government can try to run a whole economy by central planning. But the same principle applies on smaller scales. The modern cell phone industry, with half a dozen competitors, is evolving a lot more rapidly than the old Ma Bell monopoly used to. And on the other hand, there's a lot more innovation going on in the open Internet than locked-down networks of cell phone companies. (Apple doesn't seem about to change the walled garden wireless model.)

The same principle applies to the digital video marketplace. Right now, Hollywood has veto power over innovations in the video space. They've made some dumb mistakes, like charging too much and mandating the use of DRM. Unfortunately, thanks to the DMCA, competition hasn't had a chance to kick in. People can't route around Hollywood by using DVD-ripping software the way they routed around the record labels in the 1990s using CD rippers. So if somebody has a great idea for a digital video product, they have to go begging to Hollywood before they can implement it. But Hollywood isn't run by technologists, so they make bad decisions. And because nobody else is allowed to enter the market without their permission, the whole world suffers for it.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ProfBooty brings us a story about England's Heathrow airport, which will begin fingerprinting passengers on its domestic flights later this month. Airport executives claim that the data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement. We've previously discussed airport fingerprinting measures in the United States and Japan. Quoting: "All four million domestic passengers who will pass through Terminal 5 annually after it opens on March 27 will have four fingerprints taken, as well as being photographed, when they check in. To ensure the passenger boarding the aircraft is the same person, the fingerprinting process will be repeated just before they board the aircraft and the photograph will be compared with their face. Dr Gus Hosein, of the London School of Economics, an expert on the impact on technology on civil liberties, is one of the scheme's strongest critics. He said: 'There is no other country in the world that requires passengers travelling on internal flights to be fingerprinted. BAA says the fingerprint data will be destroyed, but the records of who has travelled within the country will not be, and it will provide a rich source of data for the police and intelligence agencies.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Last month, we wrote about the plan by a variety of UK-based ISPs to use all of your clickstream data to target ads to you as you surfed. That is, if you were surfing a golf site and then went and checked CNN, the system would still know that you liked golf and might serve up golf ads on CNN. At least that's the benign version of it. There are some serious questions raised by this. First of all, many people are likely to be uncomfortable with the idea that their ISP is watching what they do and then using it to target ads. Even worse, the company that the ISPs were partnering with to do all of this had previously been known as a spyware firm.

Phorm is now aggressively defending its reputation, insisting once again that it will keep all of the data it collects anonymized. However, while it says this and explains how it will try to anonymize the data, the company fails to address the fact that just about every time a company has tried to create an anonymized data set, it doesn't take long for someone to de-anonymize it. The company just assumes that it really can keep the data anonymous, when there are serious doubts as to whether or not that's really possible.

To its credit, the company isn't ignoring some of the complaints and has just done interviews with both the BBC and The Register to answer some of the concerns raised. Thankfully, both interviews do probe fairly deeply and ask some tough questions, and the Phorm execs answer each question directly. They claim that they were never "spyware" providers, only adware, but admit that the definition got blurred, which was why (they claim) they got out of the business. That sounds good until you look at some of the details about the company's former products, and the fact that it made a rather nasty rootkit injector.

That said, the execs do answer a bunch of questions about the privacy issues, noting that they're being audited by two separate firms to ensure they live up to the privacy promises. The clickstream data is immediately deleted and all the profiling is done at the ISP, not by Phorm, who is merely serving up the ads based on the profile kicked back by the ISP. While it's good to see the execs from Phorm willing to answer these questions, the company's history and the entire concept of what's being done still seems rather questionable. Phorm's insistence that this will actually decrease advertising seems like little consolation (and difficult to believe).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Large Binocular Telescope consists of two 8.4-meter mirrors which function in tandem to provide resolution greater than that of the Hubble Telescope. The LBT's first "binocular" images were captured recently, marking the end to a long and laborious construction process. We previously discussed the LBT when images were captured from the first mirror to be installed. Quoting: "The LBT ... will combine light to produce the image sharpness equivalent to a single 22.8-meter (75-foot) telescope. 'To have a fully functioning binocular telescope is not only a time for celebration here at LBT, but also for the entire astronomy community,' UA Steward Observatory Director, Regents' Professor and LBT Corp. President Peter A. Strittmatter said. 'The images that this telescope will produce will be like none seen before. The power and clarity of this machine is in a class of its own. It will provide unmatched ability to peer into history, seeing the birth of the universe.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Slashdot points to a great Bruce Schneier article debunking the idea that "transparency" is better than privacy. People like David Brin argue that technological change is rapidly making the concept of privacy obsolete, and that instead of lamenting this fact, we should make sure that everyone, including the government, is subject to increased "transparency." But Schneier does a great job of explaining what's wrong with this theory: the less power you have, the more important your privacy is to you. If the government knows everything about you, and you know everything about the government, that's not a fair trade. The government can use its increased knowledge to coerce you in a variety of ways that you're not going to like. But even if you know about everything the government is doing, you're not going to have the power to stop it from doing things you don't like. Reduced privacy for everyone increases the power of those who already have power, and increases the vulnerability of those without power.

The other problem is that in the real world, accepting less privacy for ordinary citizens isn't going to lead to increased transparency in government. Government officials who might want to put more cameras up on public streets are not going to want cameras installed in police headquarters. The Bush administration wants our electronic communications to be more "transparent" to NSA eavesdropping, but they haven't reciprocated by giving us information about how those eavesdropping programs work. It's a mistake to equate government transparency with reduced privacy for private citizens because transparency of government activities and privacy for ordinary citizens are both ways of limiting the ability of the government to violate our rights.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sometimes you got to brag. Tuesday nights on HDNet is News Night. We lead off with Dan Rather Reports
Dan has brought back real news with a full 60 minutes of reporting on news that matters. If you haven't yet, check out some of his reports that we are streaming online

DRR leads right into HDNet World Report. World Report, which is produced by Dennis OBrien doesn't get the visibility that Dan Rather Reports gets, but it knocks out great stories from around the globe week after week. Today, HDNet World Report finally started to get some of the recognition it deserved. Today, at the 74th annual National Headliner Awards, sponsored by The Press Club of Atlantic City, N.J. HDNet walked away with first place winners in TWO categories !

The first was for Documentary or Series of Reports: HDNET, "The Forgotten Front: Terrorism in the Phillipines; beating out CNN with their amazing "CNN Presents: God's Warriors;" and CNN for their , "Children of the Storm."
Our 2nd win came for News Magazine Program: HDNet World Report, "Uganda's Silent War ( a co production with Newshour with Jim Lehrer);" finishing ahead of 2nd and 3rd place finishers, Dateline NBC, "To Catch a Con Man;" JumpStart Productions/NOW on PBS, "Casualties of War".

You don't have to be the biggest to beat the best, but you do have to outwork the bigger players. Congrats to everyone at HDNet and the entire World Report team for doing amazing work and making us proud.

This is just the beginning and we promise the best is yet to come !

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ian Lamont writes "ICANN's current Joint Project Agreement with the US Commerce Department is set to expire in September of 2009, and ICANN wants to become more autonomous and switch to a global governance model, says ICANN's executive officer. The agreement between the nonprofit ICANN and the Commerce Department has been in place since 1998, and was renewed in 2006 despite international protests. A few US-based groups named in the article — including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the trade group TechNet and a conservative think tank iGrowthGlobal — would like the agreement with the Commerce Department to continue, in part to provide 'accountability.' The ICANN officer quoted in the article says expiration of the Commerce Department agreement would not remove accountability, as ICANN still has a contract with the US to operate the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and must follow California law governing nonprofits. The Register is running a related story about why some people are uncomfortable with the United States' influence on ICANN. We discussed ICANN's request for independence a few months ago."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Ian Lamont writes "ICANN's current Joint Project Agreement with the U.S. Commerce Department is set to expire in September of 2009, and ICANN wants to become more autonomous and switch to a global governance model, says ICANN's executive officer. The agreement between the nonprofit ICANN and the Commerce Department has been in place since 1998, and was renewed in 2006 despite international protests. A few U.S.-based groups named in the article — including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the trade group TechNet and a conservative think tank iGrowthGlobal — would like the agreement with the Commerce Department to continue, in part to provide 'accountability.' The ICANN officer quoted in the article says expiration of the Commerce Department agreement would not remove accountability, as ICANN still has a contract with the U.S. to operate the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and must follow California law governing nonprofits. The Register is running a related story about why some people are uncomfortable with the United States' influence on ICANN. We discussed ICANN's request for independence a few months ago."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Marc wrote a blog post after hearing Ray Ozzie's keynote at MIX 08 in Las Vegas, giving it rave reviews.

So I wanted to hear direct from Marc why it was so great. We had a 15-minute talk about this and lots of other things.

http://sundaygang.com/dave/marcCanterInterview.mp3

I'm really getting into these short interview-style podcasts, doing some of them with Cinch and others with Skype, depending on where I am when I get the idea.

Dan Farber wrote up Ozzie's keynote.

Jason Calacanis wants you to save money for your startup, so he has come up with 17 tips on how. The intention is good. Working lean is great and means you probably won’t need outside money and there’s some good stuff like don’t buy Microsoft Office and skip the phone system, but also some depressing bullshit like:

Fire people who are not workaholics…. come on folks, this is startup life, it’s not a game. go work at the post office or stabucks if you want balance in your life. For realz

Here’s another take on that: Fire the people who are workaholics! Here’s five reasons why:

1. Workaholics may well say that they enjoy those 14 hour days week after week, but despite their claims, working like that all month, all the time is not going to be sustainable. When the burnout crash comes, and it will, it’ll hit all the harder and according to Murphy at the least convenient time.
2. People who are workaholics are likely to attempt to fix problems by throwing sheer hours at the problem. If you’re dealing with people working with anything creatively that’s a deadbeat way to get great work done.
3. People who always work late makes the people who don’t feel inadequate for merely working reasonable hours. That’ll lead to guilt, misery, and poor morale. Worse, it’ll lead to ass-in-seat mentality where people will “stay late” out of obligation, but not really be productive.
4. If all you do is work, your value judgements are unlikely to be sound. Making good calls on “is it worth it?” is absolutely critical to great work. Missing out on life in general to put more hours in at the office screams “misguided values”.
5. Working with interesting people is more interesting than just working. If all you got going for your life is work, work, work, the good team-gelling lunches are going to be some pretty boring straight shop talk. Yawn. I’d much rather hear more about your whittling project, your last trek, how your garden is doing, or when you’ll get your flight certificate.

If your start-up can only succeed by being a sweatshop, your idea is simply not good enough. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something better that can be implemented by whole people, not cogs.

Terry Bosky suggests a recent interview from Game Couch with one of the authors of an upcoming book which fights the "myths and hysteria" surrounding violent video games. Dr. Cheryl K. Olson explains how many of the studies linking aggression with video games were flawed or misguided, and she discusses some of her own findings. Quoting: "Until now, the most-publicized studies came from a small group of experimental psychologists, studying college students playing nonviolent or violent games for 15 minutes. It's debatable whether those studies are relevant to real children, playing self-selected games for their own reasons (not for cash or extra credit!), in social settings, over many years. But media reports and political rhetoric often ignore that distinction. Also, the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence. Their studies were designed under the assumption that violent video games are harmful, which dictated the questions they asked and how they framed their results. Media violence is just a small part of what we do, so we could look at the issue with fresh eyes and no agenda."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A somewhat bizarre situation happened in Germany earlier this week, where various demonstrators at the popular CeBit trade show had their booths raided by German police, confiscating various gadgets for infringing on patents. Patent law is a bit different in Germany, allowing this type of seizure, but I can't understand what sort of practical reason there could be for allowing such a thing. No one was directly selling these products, just demonstrating them. Second, confiscating the products ruins the tradeshow appearance for these companies without them having a chance to defend themselves against the charges of infringement. I could understand preventing the sale of products after it's proven in a trial that infringement occurred, but to simply confiscate display gadgets without a trial seems counterproductive. All it's really going to do is convince consumer electronics companies not to go to German trade shows any more, and focus on showing off new innovations in other countries.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story