Now you can calculate the retail-value of your privacy to the penny with Swipe’s privacy calculator. (They also have a tool for seeing what info is being stored on the barcode on the back of your driver’s license.)
How much your privacy worth? Read More »
The past few days I’ve been downloading streaming audio of lectures and talks given by interesting and intelligent people™, converting them to MP3 format and putting them on my iPod. The process is still a little slow — usually I stream the audio using RealPlayer and use Applescript and Wiretap to automatically capture to disk, then trim using Quicktime Pro and convert to MP3 using iTunes. However, I’m pleased with the end result.
I’m still looking for good sources of audio talks, and welcome suggestions & links. Here are the three I’ve most enjoyed so far:
Audio Lectures for download Read More »
Jane Black’s Privacy Matters column in BusinessWeek this week takes a look at the privacy backlash against the MATRIX statewide database and similar programs:
BIRTH OF BIG BROTHER. There’s no doubt that MATRIX raises privacy red flags, though after an extensive briefing by the Florida Law Enforcement Dept., which is spearheading the project, I believe that it’s little more than an efficient way to query multiple databases.
The real furor over MATRIX demonstrates something much more important — and surprising: Privacy advocates have gained a lot of ground in the two years since September 11. And the pendulum is swinging back in their favor.
…
“The MATRIX is not whirring away at night to create a list of suspects that is placed on my desk every morning,” says Zadra [chief of investigation at the Florida Law Enforcement]. “All it does is dynamically combine commercially available public data with state-owned data [such as driver’s license information, sexual-predator records, and Corrections Dept. information] when queried. I can’t imagine any citizen getting angry that we’re using the best tools available to efficiently and effectively solve crimes.”
Nobody has a problem with law enforcement using the best tools to solve crimes. Everybody has a problem with law enforcement using those tools to harass innocent citizens and suppress free expression of speech. It’s because of this potential for abuse that we have things like the Fourth Amendment and laws preventing the CIA from spying on US citizens. The trouble with all these combined public/commercial database plans like MATRIX, CAPPS-2 and TIA is that commercial databases have no such protections — companies can and will do just about anything to gather information about us, and it’s all perfectly legal. Why should I care whether it’s the CIA or Master Card that is telling the government what breakfast cereal I eat?
Groklaw has a quick summary of SCO CEO Darl McBride’s recent talk at Harvard.
SCO’s arguments are from so far out on both legal and factual grounds the only question I have is whether they just lose their case or if there will be jail terms for any of their officers as well. As for the Linux community, SCO is a distraction, but hopefully it will also act like like an immunization made from an almost-dead virus — no real danger, but it prepares the body for a similar but more powerful attack later.
Groklaw on McBride talk Read More »
FusedSpace is hosting a design contest for “innovative ideas that, by means of existing technology, can change or improve our current relationship with physical public space or that can otherwise bring about innovations in the public domain.” (Where by public domain they mean in the sense of common space, not in the intellectual property sense.) Props to Corante and Eric Nehrlich for the link.
Tech in Public Space contest Read More »
As most of you have no doubt heard, the MoveOn.org Voter Fund sponsored contest for anti-Bush political ads called Bush In 30 Seconds. The winner was a very nice piece, IMO, called Child’s Play, and MoveOn tried to purchase time to play it during the Superbowl halftime tomorrow. CBS refused, claiming they have a policy against airing advocacy ads. (Though apparently some advocacy ads, like the one that will liken the tobacco industry to a company that sells ice cream mixed with shards of glass, is OK.) MoveOn is running the ad on other stations, and is calling on viewers to switch channels to CNN at 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST to watch it — I have to wonder which sponsor CBS plans to saddle with the $1.6 million slots that get caught in these one-minute-boycott periods.
Of all the editorials and discussion on the subject, the bit that interests me most is this segment of Senator Richard Durbin’s (D-Il) speech on the Senate floor a few days ago:
Now let’s connect all the dots because there is something more direct and topical behind this CBS decision, from my point of view. These are the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Congress to change the FCC rules on TV station ownership to their corporate advantage. The provision that was sneaked into the Omnibus appropriation bill that passed last week and has been signed by the President. It establishes a new ceiling of 39 percent as the maximum percentage of American TV viewers in a market that may be reached by TV stations owned by any one company. Remember that number, 39 percent.
Before the FCC adopted rules in June to raise the cap to 45 percent, the cap was limited to 35 percent. Upset at what the FCC had done, a strong majority in the House and Senate agreed to roll back the FCC rule and take it back down to 35 percent. Why is this important? The White House and the Republicans in this conference on this Omnibus appropriation bill, with no Democrats present, came up with a figure of 39 percent as the new cap–39 percent. What is so magic about 39 percent? Allow me to explain. This wasn’t chosen at random; it wasn’t a good-faith compromise. No, it just so happens that Viacom, which owns CBS, currently owns stations reaching 38.8 percent of American households, and Rupert Murdoch’s news corporation, the owners of that “fair and balanced” Fox Network, owns stations reaching 37.8 percent.
Interesting. Interesting that the White House and Republican leaders in Congress pushed a provision in a spending bill in the dark of night, without Democrats present, that benefited two corporations when it came to their ownership of television stations–Fox, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, and now Viacom, CBS. Both entities currently violate the old FCC limitation. They needed this new language. They would have been forced to sell off stations if their Republican friends in Congress and the White House had not come through for them.
So the White House and the congressional Republicans give CBS a significant corporate favor and CBS rewards them by killing an ad critical of the Bush White House during the Super Bowl. Doesn’t that sound like a perfect subject for a “60 Minutes” investigation? Oh, I forget. “60 Minutes” is a CBS program. I don’t think we are going to hear about this on “60 Minutes.” I don’t think Mike Wallace and Lesley Stahl are going to be taking an undercover camera into the boardrooms of CBS to find out what is going on there.
References
Durbin on CBS’ censorship of MoveOn.org Read More »
Years ago, Steve Mann made Cool Site of the Day with his Wearable Wireless Webcam. Now, almost a decade later, you can order the DejaView CamWear Model 100 hat or glasses-mounted camera, which continually records a 30-second buffer of video so you can push a button and start recording from before you even know you wanted to. Price will be $399, available “in January” (so they’d better hurry!)
I don’t expect this first-generation product to make a big splash, but I do believe in the vision of always-ready wearable cameras and microphones with this sort of record-30-seconds-into-the-past kind of feature. The story is somewhat compelling for consumers (“when your baby makes that great smile, you can capture it and grab the best frame as a picture”) but even more so for industry and inspection, where you’re more concerned with documenting an event than with the artistry of the video.
Commercial Wearable Camera Read More »
No, I’m not talking about the presidential election…
Last week the California State Assembly discussed a new law (AB 1424) that would prohibit the state from putting a child in foster care solely for refusing to administer medication for a psychiatric disorder, or for refusing to allow the child to be tested for a psychiatric condition. An analysis of the bill can be found here.
According to a press release by the bill’s author, Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, the bill would protect children from “forced medication with dangerous psychiatric drugs.” He quotes Dr. Fred Baughman, a “pediatric neurologist,” as claiming mental disorders don’t exist, and quotes Cassandra Auerbach of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights as warning that psychiatrists are on the payroll of big drug companies and are covering up suicide statistics and other dangers of these drugs. The release doesn’t quite come out and say that psychiatrists are stealing your babies and stewing them for dinner, but it comes close.
I doubt this bill will ever make it out of committee, and that’s probably a good thing. In general I give deference to the parents when it comes to raising their own children, but two things set off alarm bells for me in this bill. First, I don’t like the way it treats mental illnesses as fundamentally different than physical illnesses. If the state should intervene when a parent refuses to administer life-saving medicine to treat a virus, it should also intervene when a child is chronically suicidal or homicidal. Second, I’m extremely sceptical of the two “experts” cited in the propaganda for this bill. Dr. Baughman seems to be of the opinion that mental illnesses don’t exist because we don’t yet know the direct causal links between brain chemistry and most illnesses. Even ignoring the fact that this lack of knowledge is true of many physical illnesses as well, the idea that mental illness is not associated with brain and body chemistry is ludicrous on its face: if suicidal thoughts and other dangerous behavior were not related to chemistry then psychoactive drugs could not have the effects they have. While they are not unbiased in this debate, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) testified in a letter to Congress that Dr. Baughman “represent[s] fringe opinions” about psychiatry. As for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, this righteously-named group was founded by the Church of Scientology with a charter to attack psychiatrists and the psychiatric profession. For those who don’t know their history, Scientology is a cult that considers the field of medicine, and particularly psychiatry, as evil incarnate. I recommend Garry Armstrong’s site for a good explanation of why. I don’t whether CCHR is behind this bill or just supporting it, but their association with it in any form makes me worried.
Mental illness in politics Read More »
Rob Galbraith’s Digital Photography Insights has a great article about National Geographic’s first cover story shot entirely in digital. (Props to Haberlach for the link.)
Digital had many of the advantages I’d expect: less equipment to get lost, easy backups, ability to review pictures on-site, and easier remote collaborative editing. The disadvantages were more surprising to me, and included having to deal with brightness differences on different screens, inability to edit on a large horizontal surface like a light-table, and poor contrast compared to slides when showing photos to a large group.
National Geographic’s first digital shoot Read More »
There’s been some discussion over at PRESSthink about the idea of individual bloggers adopting a single journalist to follow for the presidential campaign. There are a lot of links and discussion off that site, the post that brought it to my attention was Dave Winer’s post that we should track candidates by issue, not the journalists. I agree with Dave, but I don’t think we need to make that choice.
The nice thing about blogs is that we don’t have to choose between adopting candidates, journalists or issues (zone defense vs. man-to-man, as it were). Bloggers should adopt any combination of candidate, journalist, or issue to watch, and then send those posts to the appropriate aggregator(s).
The nice thing about reading aggregators is we won’t be stuck with one blogger’s inherently-biased view about a particular subject, nor will we only have mini-experts on the issue at hand. For example, the Krugman aggregator will have posts by the various bloggers who adopt Krugman, but also the occasional post by bloggers who adopt Bush (when they reference a Krugman article) or the middle-class tax cut (when they talk about that topic). And best of all from my perspective, if people start reading aggregators instead of individual blogs they might occasionally stumble across a post with which they disagree, and that sounds like a fine thing to happen.
Update: fixed my link to Dave’s post.
Adopt-a-journalist: Zone defense or man-to-man Read More »