See his entry into the Twitterverse:
Today I interviewed a squirrel in my backyard and then threw to commercial. Somebody help me.
Category: Internet
Unbelievably F%$#ing Stupid
Click for full size
I don’t intend to ban Italian IP numbers
… … … Yet
An Italian court has convicted 3 Google executives on criminal privacy violations because someone posted a nasty video to Google Video:
A judge in Milan, Italy, on Wednesday convicted three Google executives — chief legal officer David Drummond, global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer and former CFO George Reyes — of violating Italy’s privacy laws, a decision that Google is characterizing as an attack on Internet freedom.
The charges stem from a video that was uploaded to YouTube in Italy, back in September 2006, that depicts four high school boys in a classroom in Turin, Italy, taunting another boy with a mental disability.
Google received two requests to remove the video in early November, one from a user and one from the Italian Interior Ministry, and did so within 24 hours.
Nonetheless, Francesco Cajani, a prosecutor in Milan, filed suit against four Google employees for violating Italian privacy laws. All four were found not guilty of criminal defamation. The fourth, Arvind Desikan, formerly the head of Google Video in London, was acquitted of the privacy violation charges, unlike Drummond, Fleischer, and Reyes.
If I was running a service with user generated content, I would start denying access to Italian IPs.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this might have been driven in some manner or another by Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, who has control of something like 80% of the broadcast media in Italy, and might be unhappy with the competition for ad revenue and news.
Good News on the Broadband Front
Click for full size
The Phone Company
When one compares broadband in the US and the rest of the developed world, we discover that that in the US we have higher prices, and lower performance, much like our healthcare system.
What is common in both is that markets are controlled largely by monopolistic,* and largely unregulated, for profit private companies.
Well, now it looks like the FCC will be ordering the large players to lease lines to their competitors:
AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. would be forced to lease fast Internet lines to rivals providing Web services to small businesses under a proposal being weighed by U.S. regulators.
The biggest U.S. phone companies have told the Federal Communications Commission that opening access to lines they laid would curb their incentive to continue spending billions of dollars expanding high-speed service. The FCC’s decision “will significantly affect investment in fiber-based networks,” line- maker Corning Inc. said in a filing with the agency.
The idea, proposed to the FCC by computer-services company Cbeyond Inc., has support from the Small Business Administration, which said it could spur job creation. The plan would add to competition for business clients, who are also being courted by cable providers led by Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc.
Players like AT&T and Verizon make much of their profits from doing business under either a monopoly of a duopoly environment, and this is a start to creating meaningful competition.
*Full disclosure: I have Verizon® Fios™., so I receive my connectivity from one of these, “monopolistic, and largely unregulated, for profit private companies.”
The Robin Hood Tax Gains Support in the UK
I Would Like to See This on US Television
It’s actually called a “Tobin Tax“, and the idea is that a tax of about 5 basis points (0.05%) on non-consumer bank transactions (otherwise known as “speculation”).
As was noted with the original Tobin proposal, this is actually very hard to evade, because they sales have to be settled something, and for any transaction of any significant size, this means only a few places, New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, etc. settle (i.e.) pay.
If you moved from highly trafficked settling institutions to obscure ones, the costs of settling become much higher, and in fact will likely likely be much higher than 5 basis points.
There is an organization in the UK, the Robin Hood Tax campaign, which is lobbying for the idea, and produced the above video, which illustrates how it would work, and how it would benefit everyone except for the vampire squids* of the world.
In an interesting twist to all of this, the folks at the campaign put up an online poll, and some online entities spammed the poll to oppose the proposal.
I wonder who might have done this?
The Robin Hood Tax campaign alleged that a Goldman computer was one of two computers that allegedly “spammed” the internet poll with more than 4,600 “no” votes in less than 20 minutes on Thursday.
Technical staff for the Robinhoodtax.org.uk website said the “no” counter increased at a “dramatic rate” from 3.41pm.
The number of “no” votes jumped from 1,400 to 6,000 before campaigners – who are calling for the introduction of 0.05pc tax on banking transactions – tightened the site’s security.
Robin Hood’s security team claimed it traced the erroneous votes to two computers, one of which is allegedly registered as belonging to Goldman.
Goldman is saying that it has, “just received this information and is investigating fully,” which in the UK means busting which ever staff member is of Indian or Pakistani extraction, I guess.
In any case, the “Yes” vote is winning by about 9:1, 41488 to 4626.
I approve of their program, though I think that 5 basis points is too low. It should be at least 25 basis points (¼%).
*Goldman Sachs and their Evil Minions™
Google Mulls Jumping C. Megalodon*
This is one big shark that they jumped.
With Frikken Lasers!
So, now that the Chinese have hacked into Google, the Google has decided to throw in their lot with the National Security Agency to protect themselves:
The world’s largest Internet search company and the world’s most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity.
Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack.
Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership. But sources with knowledge of the arrangement, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the alliance is being designed to allow the two organizations to share critical information without violating Google’s policies or laws that protect the privacy of Americans’ online communications. The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users’ searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data.
Of course, neither does giving money to a junkie mean that they will be buying heroin.
As Noah Schachtman notes, it doesn’t require a tinfoil hat to think that it is possible, nay, even likely, that the NSA will use this access to suck data like a giant hoover. It’s what they do:
But there’s a problem. The NSA and its predecessors also have a long history of spying on huge numbers of people, both at home and abroad. During the Cold War, the agency worked with companies like Western Union to intercept and read millions of telegrams. The during the war on terror years, the NSA teamed up with the telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on customers’ phone calls and Internet traffic right from the telcos’ switching stations. And even after the agency pledged to clean up its act — and was given wide new latitude to spy on whom they liked – the NSA was still caught “overcollecting” on U.S. citizens. According to the New York Times, the agency even “tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant.”
All of which makes the NSA a particularly untrustworthy partner for a company that is almost wholly reliant on its customers’ trust and goodwill. We all know that Google automatically reads our G-Mail and scans our Google Calendars and dives into our Google searches, all in an attempt to put the most relevant ads in front of us. But we’ve tolerated the automated intrusions, because Google’s products are so good, and we believed that the company was since in its “don’t be evil” mantra.
The issue here is not that Google would voluntarily allow the NSA to access personally identifiable data, it is that they are ill equipped to defend themselves against a company that hoovered the entire Internet.
If the NSA does not leave a back door in the Google servers, without the knowledge of Google management, as part of their efforts, then they would not be doing their job properly.
This is like employing Lady Gaga as a model for tastefully modest evening wear.
*The largest shark, and likely largest predator fish ever. It died out some 1.5 million years ago. The Genus is still in dispute, between either Carcharodon (Great White) or Carcharocles (broad toothed Mako). But in either case, you are jumping C. Megalodon, you have jumped the biggest shark ever.
If You Have Extra Cash…………
You might want to give it to Wikileaks, which has suspended their operations because they have run out of cash:
Wikileaks, which has published anonymously contributed information that is both confidential and controversial, has one thing in common with many more-traditional media outlets: financial troubles.
The site has posted confidential 9/11 pager messages, tangled with banks and the Church of Scientology, revealed inner workings of the U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, and shared snippets of e-mail from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Now, though, Wikileaks has shut the site down at least temporarily.
“To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations, but will be back soon,” a note on the Wikileaks site said Monday. “We have raised just over $130,000 for this year but can not meaningfully continue operations until costs are covered. These amount to just under $200,000 PA [per annum]. If staff are paid, our yearly budget is $600,000.”
These guys do very good work, whether it’s uncovering things like money laundering, providing secret draft agreements on an “IP reign of terror” treaty, and torture manuals US military manuals for maltreating detainees.
Previous Wikileaks posts here, they have been a source for my scribblings not infrequently.
Deep Thought
Click for full size
Reminds Me of a Certain Super Bowl Ad
Hillary Clinton has just announced that it’s now official US policy for countries to allow their internet access to be free and uncensored:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled on Thursday a new U.S. policy that encourages the world’s governments to ensure their citizens have open access to the Internet.
The speech comes a little more than a week after Google’s blunt declaration about Chinese censorship and illegal electronic intrusions, and the company’s assertion that it will pull out of China if it can’t reach a reasonable understanding with the Beijing government.
9:54 a.m. EST Clinton took the stage here at the Newseum, a museum dedicated to the news industry, and appealed to the audience to think of the communications networks that have been destroyed in last week’s massive earthquake in Haiti. She also noted how a mother and daughter in Haiti enabled their rescue by sending a text message. Clinton called communication networks a “new nervous system” for the world.
“In many respects, information has never been so free,” Clinton said. She referred to the way that virtually anyone can broadcast information to the Internet at any time. But governments can also use Internet and communications technologies to repress their people, she said, “just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns.”
My first thought was, “Good for her,” and by extension, Barack Obama.
My one, and the the one that falls into the “Deep Thought” category, is that picture really looks like that “1984” ad that an Obamanite put out during the primaries.
Buh Bye New York Times
One of the dirty secret of the newspaper business is that people do not pay for the news.
People pay a portion of the cost of setting ink to paper, but the remainder of the cost of producing a physical copy, as well as the cost of producing the content is covered by advertising.
The problem is that the most lucrative part of advertising is the classified. at about $55 for 3 lines, it generates a lot of revenue.
Unfortunately, Craigslist is better and cheaper, so newspapers find their classified revenue shrinking.
Additionally, after years of playing the Wall Street game of cutting costs, meaning reporters and in depth stories, and quality in general, their product is less attractive.
In the case of the New York Times, this has been further complicated by the fact that they plunked down a huge amount of cash for their brand new narcissistic monument to the New York Times office building, so they find themselves with a cash flow problem.
It appears that they are looking at setting up a pay wall around the newspaper to generate the desired revenue.
They have forgotten the disaster that was Times Select, which shut down after 2 years, when they generated very little revenue, and their opinion pieces largely dropped of the map on the Internet.
People pay for the Wall Street Journal because it provides breaking financial news, which is something that people have traditionally been willing to pay for.
General news, probably not, and so I’ll probably find other sources to link to.
Youtube Pr0n Day: The Dog that Didn’t Bark
The folks at 4Chan declared last Friday to be Pr0n Friday at Youtube, because they objected to the termination of the account of a user.
Only, Friday rolled around, and nothing happened, not even a falsified death notice involving gay prostitution and meth.
So, what happened? Well, nothing happened. Friday was just like any other day.
So, what did geniuses at Google, Youtube’s parent, do to address this?
Did they come up with a technical method to kill all of this? Was there some sort of highly sophisticated algorithm developed to spot nipples, penises, vaginas, and pubic hair?
Well, no, they didn’t, what they did was far more basic and more effective: They had some of their employees log into 4chan, and when people bragged about the pr0n posts, they took them down.
No link yet, just online chatter.
Google Mans Up On China
Google set up a Chinese search page, Google.cn, in 2006 to accommodate the censorship demands of the Chinese government.
At the time, it said that it would, “carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services.,” and thatif it determined that it was, “unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”
Well, it’s reconsidered its approach, and it is telling the government of China to go Cheney itself.
The proximate cause appears to be sophisticated, and repeated efforts by the Chinese government to hack the Gmail accounts of Chinese democracy activists, as well as similar, and pervasive attempts to hack other businesses with similar goals.
The money phrase is this:
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
They just gave the Chinese government 3 weeks to shut them down.
It is possible that this may be a game of chicken, as is the case with Google news and AP stories, but I am inclined to doubt this.
If they have any understanding of China at all, they must understand that this public statement, and the associated loss of face for the Chinese authorities should they accede to Google’s demands, will result in the shuttering of their site, and their operations, in China.
Full statement after the break:
A new approach to China
1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.
We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve’s blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.
We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.
We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.
Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
Too True
It is true on some level.
When I f&^% something up, people are already willing to forgive me.
Why Yes, It Appears that Barack Obama Has Sold Us Out Again…………
Silly peasant, it’s only the bankers, insurance companies, and other big players who get their promises kept. If it’s a promise to the little people, it doesn’t count.
This time, it’s net neutrality:
The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.
That’s my reading of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.
…………
Signs of more modest Net neutrality regulations include resignation in late October of Susan Crawford, who took part in Thursday’s panel discussion and who was previously a key adviser to the president on technology and communications. According to the conservative-leaning American Spectator, [according to the paid to lie by Richard Mellon Scaife American Spectator] Crawford’s version of Net neutrality was too radical for White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers, contributing to her early departure.
…………
Part of the reason is some unexpected political pressure, including a letter signed by 72 congressional Democrats opposing the FCC’s proposed rules soon after they were announced.
But the bigger explanation is the growing priority within the administration for nationwide, affordable broadband service. In the course of preparing the national broadband plan, mandated by the 2009 stimulus bill, universal high-speed access has taken on increased significance in the government’s hopes for a rapid economic recovery. Beyond the current financial woes, Congress, the FCC and the White House all recognize the importance of improving the communications infrastructure to maintain U.S. competitiveness in technology innovation.
You see, the Telcos won’t build out high speed fiber/cable unless we allow them to bend us over the table and do us without any lube at all.
This is why the US has the highest costs and the slowest speeds for internet access in the developed world (here, here, and here), because allowing the Baby Bells and the Cable companies to squash competition and extort money.
Pwn36*
Click for full size
They paid someone to do this?
So, the Republican Party comes up with a URL shortener, the idea being that they would send people to the site, but put banners top and bottom that would advertise themselves and pranksters use it to link to pr0n:
The Republican party took down its innovative link-shortening tool Tuesday for several hours after pranksters had a field day using the tool to associate the GOP with bondage sites.
Having used Tinyurl and bit.ly for almost a decade, this is “innovative” only in the sense that House Minority John Boehner has a “human” complexion.†
As part of its new media strategy, the Republican party launched a new site called GOP.am on Monday. It’s a URL shortener designed to make it easy for conservative web surfers to exchange links to web pages.
This is what happens when people try to be hip and cool when they have not the slightest inkling what it means to be hip and cool.
So quoth the engineer, who has no clue as to what it means to be either hip or cool.
*Owned.
†Truth be told, if I didn’t know that he’s had it for years, I would have tagged it as jaundice.
Facebook Founder Completely PWN36* By Facebook Privacy Policy
Bummer of a birth mark, Mr. Zuckerberg
I check Facebook every day or soo, and I feed my blog there, albeit imperfectly, so when the came up with a privacy policy update, I didn’t pay too much attention, until I heard lots of people complaining.
Management there said it was no big deal, but then about 300 personal photos of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg were made public to the general public:
In a not-uncommon development for the social-networking leader, Facebook’s recently released privacy controls are leaving the company a bit red-faced. As a result of a new policy that by default makes users’ profiles, photos and friends lists available on the web, almost 300 personal photos of founder Mark Zuckerberg became publicly available, a development that had gossip sites like Gawker yukking it up.
Kashmir Hill, a blogger for True/Slant, first reported Zuckerberg’s new exposure, noting, “Either Mark Zuckerberg got a whole lot less private or Facebook’s CEO doesn’t understand the company’s new privacy settings.” Under the new privacy regime, user profiles are exposed to the web unless users are proactive about limiting access.
So, what did Morty make public?
- His wall
- His photo albums
- The fact that he is a Taylor Swift fan
- Graphic (!?!) photos of “The Great Goat Roast of 2009”
- The time, date, and location of the Facebook corporate holiday party.
Oopsie.
*Owned.
If You’ve Ever Had a Client Who Wants Your Services Without Payment
Fun With Google Autocomplete
H/t Nick, of Tales From The Server Room.
Google’s Latest Target
Nowhere is safe from the all consuming business plan of Google
A Great Name for a Blog
I have absolutely no clue about the quality of the analysis, it seems to be inside baseball academic economics at first glance, but I love the title.
This Has Epic Fail Written All Over It
It looks like Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp are working together to attempt to create a walled garden around his so-called news:
Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company’s being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early stage.
However, the Financial Times has learnt that Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google’s search engine.
There are a number of assumptions here, on both sides, which I think will kill the deal:
- That NewsCorp®, and its shareholders will tolerate the implosion, at least in the short term, of online ad revenues, particularly given the current moribund revenues for print advertisement.
- That even if Microsoft® is successful, its unlikely to bring in much in the way of other search business their way.
- That if Microsoft® succeeds in dethroning Google® that they won’t be an aggressive monopolist and short change those content providers.
- That Craigslist® won’t continue to eat their lunches in the lucrative local classified markets.
- That the New York Times will team with the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and New York Post on this.
- That any of the foreign media will go in on this.
- That the EU antitrust authorities won’t be on their ass like white on rice.
This is one of those things that will get a lot of ink, because, of course, the newspapers want it to work, but it won’t get much beyond that.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is, and continues to be, that the major news outlets are driven by the demands from Wall Street to hit their numbers, which, when juxtaposed with stupid debt deals on shiny new headquarters, they have consistently made their products less attractive.
The problem is that when you cut journalism out of newspapers, all you have left is advertisements, and like I said, Craigslist® is better as a pure advertising play.
H/t Atrios.
Old Pinko is a F$#@ing Genius
I’ve known the Old Pinko for years, and we exchange emails frequently, and I sent him notice of the twitter meme about using some celebrities to read the bill if the Republicans demand a full reading on the floor of the Senate.
His response:
They should use folks, perhaps children, who have serious illnesses and no health insurance. That, that would really stick it too them.
I will note, however, that I would probably avoid using children, since the right wing in general, and Michelle Malkin, and her deranged Minions™ in particular, already have a history of going after people whose politics they find distasteful, including 12 year old boys critically injured in auto accidents.
Now, if only he’d post more frequently to his blog.