Liberté, Egalité, Bureaucracy

French Bureaucracy.  Those words should strike fear into the hearts of everyone.  For a country whose motto translates into “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, the byzantine stretch of absurd regulations in France often makes one wonder if the ghost of Kafka is laughing or crying.  

So it really comes as no surprise to hear that the French government in its infinite wisdom recently decreed that hosts of television and radio programs must refrain from uttering the words “Facebook” and “Twitter” on the air. Imagine if that happened in the US.  CNN might as well shut down, as currently every third sentence is a request to “Join the conversation”.  Who knows, maybe they would have to go back to actually reporting the news rather than everyone’s reaction to it.  Hmmm… But I digress. 

What was surprising was the reaction to the decree in France, or should I say, the non-reaction.  Some newspapers published straightforward reports of the government action, some French bloggers questioned the decision, but overall the reaction was “meh” combined with the classic French shrug. 

Now there were reasons given, having to do with egalité.  The CSA (France’s Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel, the equivalent to the FCC) maintained that any on-air mention of a program’s Facebook page or Twitter feed constitutes “clandestine advertising” for these social networks because they are commercial operations. In a word, French television and radio programs cannot be seen to be promoting Facebook and Twitter as commercial brands. There are outlets available other than Twitter and Facebook.  To allow the preference of the the two largest players in the room  would “be a distortion of competition”.  If the government allows Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box — other social networks will complain saying, “why not us?”.

However, as pointed out by French blogger Benoit Raphael, Facebook and Twitter are now “public spaces” of communication with a global reach. And it is because of that reality TV and radio stations use the two extensively to connect to their audience.  Too bad, according to the bureaucrats.  No mention of Twitter or Facebook unless it is a direct story about the companies.

Of course, one may point out that la paperasserie is still motivated by an institutionalized hostility towards Anglo-Saxon domination, but that would be rude.

In Order to Have a Free Market, You Need to Have Choices

One of the great things about a “Free Market” is that if you don’t like the company you are getting services from, you can always go somewhere else. 

Well, except if you’re dealing with Internet Service Providers and live in North Carolina.  Then you’re pretty much screwed.  You see, Governor Bev Purdue says that she will neither sign nor veto H.129.  Now for those who do not know, H.129 is a bill that would put restrictions on cities that currently provide internet service to its citizens (Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton, Davidson, and Mooresville), and would significantly hinder any efforts by other cities to pursue their own municipal internet services. The obvious winners in this action are Time-Warner cable and AT&T, who have spent a lot of money improving their services, er, buying politicians, er, let’s just say, they’ve spent a lot of money over this. 

Some of the provisions in H.129 state that cities:

• Shall provide nondiscriminatory access to private communications service providers on a first-come, first-served basis to rights-of-way, poles, or conduits owned, leased, or operated by the city unless the facilities have insufficient capacity for the access and additional capacity cannot reasonably be added to the facilities.
• Shall not use city resources that are not allocated for cost accounting purposes to the city-owned communications service  to promote city-owned communications service in comparison to private services or, directly or indirectly, require city employees, officers, or contractors to purchase city services
• Shall not subsidize the provision of communications service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water, sewer, or garbage services.
• Shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service, including any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city-owned communications service provider and allocation of costs associated with any shared use of buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel with other city departments.

The bill ensures that companies like Time Warner Cable and AT&T will continue to be the dominant players in most North Carolina markets, even with higher pricing and speeds that often lag far behind what cities themselves can provide for its residents.

Never mind the fact that these municipalities decided to vote to band together and provide its own municipal services.  And why did they do that?  Because the Internet service providers were dragging their feet and underserving the market.  The community did not have a choice that was fast and inexpensive, so they created one.  And because they are offering their community an alternative that is better, the telecoms run and pay off politicians to curtail it. Because as we all know, municipalities should not have an “unfair advantage” over the private sector.  In this case the unfair advantage is a service that is better, faster and cheaper.  You know, those same arguments that are used when a government decides to outsource a municipal service to a private company. 

Funny how that works.

Protecting IPs From Whom?

It may be summer soon, but there is a chill in the air.  Legislation known as the “Protect IP Act” has been introduced in Washington.  Basically it is the successor to the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act that made its way through congress back in November. 

This is how the bill would work.  The U.S. Department of Justice would receive the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site, and then serve that order on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms–which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web site invisible.

Needless to say, Google is not happy.  The bill would also make Google, which makes most of its profits from its online advertising products, stop serving ads or sponsored links to those sites deemed as infringing. To quote Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt on Wednesday:

"If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems] to do X, and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it.”

…

"If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it. If it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it”

…

"So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS.’ OK, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs.’ That country would be China.”

As my dad used to say, those are fightin’ words.  And in many ways he is correct, because the main thrust of this is not the Pirate Bay and similar sites, as one might suspect, but rather Wikileaks. 

You see, under this law, leaking information such as governmental cables or embarrassing and/or damaging bank information showing rampant fraud and the like is basically distributing copyrighted material, and therefore subject to the takedown.  See how that works? Do not think for a minute that any of that was lost upon the members of congress who see the site as something they would like to see go away, and soon.

Of course the MPAA had words to fire back, seeing that they basically wrote the bill for the esteemed members of congress.  Michael O’Leary, an executive vice president for MPAA, in a statement:

“Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws. And the notion that China would use a bipartisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does.”

That last part may be true.  But if China does it, does that mean that we must follow their example?

Weekend Wrap Up–Bad Moves Edition

It has been a busy week, at least if your job is spinning jaw-dropping stupid stunts.

Bad Move Number One.  I think that people have a right to talk about “conflict of interest” in an honest way when you approve one of the largest mergers in US history, then four months later go to work for the company you approved the merger for.  Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission decided to take a lobbying position at Comcast. But, as we all know, one did not have anything to do with the other. 

Bad Move Number Two.  You know it’s a bad move to plant smears on your corporate opponent when the PR company you hired to do so suddenly says “Wait a minute, this isn’t right”.  But Facebook went ahead and did it anyway.  Really, Zuck?  Do you really feel that people are going to leave Facebook for whatever the flavor of the month Google is pitching to be relevant in the social market? 

Bad Move Number Three.  Rupert Murdoch decided to create his own version of Wikileaks, called “Safehouse”.  Yeah, I know, it took me a while to stop laughing on this one.  Of course, unlike Wikileaks, if the heat gets to be too much (you know like someone asks “who sent you this?”), they will sell you down the river to the authorities.  Really, the man is known for spreading lies concerning just about everyone on the planet and we are supposed to believe that if it is posted in “Safehouse” then it must be true?  They say that two positives don’t make a negative.  Yeah.  Right.

Bad move Number Four.  Something that really has something to do with technology, although it doesn’t look like it on the surface.  The political season is once again upon us and unfortunately, we are going to have to put up with political ads.  So far, we have a tie for what are the worst political ads ever, and we have only just begun, so the only place you’ll see them is either on “Web Soup” or the internet.  Really, Newt Gingrich has no reason to be turning out this cheese.  He has been in the game too long to think that this pile of excrement is actually good for him.  But Dan Adler’s ads are starting off by being, well, different.  And by Different, I mean just WTF?  I mean, Patty Duke, in the Muscle Beach weight lifting area telling constituents “Dan Adler gets sh*t done.” and a second ad that makes as much sense as the first.  I don’t know whether the guy is serious or is trolling the southern half of California. BTW, his campaign manager is Sean Astin, he of LOTR fame and Patty Duke’s son.  So there is no excuse for these either.

Just remember, folks, technology is a tool.  Unfortunately, so are many people. 

Somewhere Over the Google Rainbow

Google has finally announced the winner of its1GB fiber-to-the-home network extravaganza.  The winner is Kansas City, Kansas.

Google announced in February, 2010 that it would build and operate its own fiber test network.  Over 1,000 US town applied.  There were all kinds of ways to get Google’s attention.  Google plans to start building the Kansas City network later this year, offering service to residents in the first quarter of 2012. Pricing is said to be “competitive”.

So how did Kansas City do it?  First, KC had a lot going for it in the competition.  But, if you read the story in the Kansas City Star, it speaks of “staying below the radar and keeping the team very tight”.  It talks of confidentiality agreements.  It meant being secretive and not letting anyone know about it until the very end.  Because Google wanted it that way.

Excuse my progressive side here for a moment, but basically, the government of Kansas City was as transparent about this as a brick wall.  This is one of those deals that could be seen as having been done in a back room without any input from the people.  Oh, wait, that is exactly what happened.  The fact that not even executive assistants were clued in as to what was going on should give people pause.  This is government.  These are officials elected by the people to do the people’s business.  Shouldn’t the people get to know what is going on before the announcement?  The fact that this is a great win for a great city notwithstanding, the point is that if the deal turns out to be a proverbial pig in a poke somewhere down the line, what do you do?  You were not invited to the deal making.

But we all know that Google does no evil and therefore, this should be seen as a golden ticket to the chocolate factory.  But it is not.  It is a deal between a corporation and city and county government.  There were more than enough cities out there willing to be up front and honest about what they were doing.  They didn’t win.

Apparently being open about doing business is being evil these days.

And Then There Were Three (for now)

Is it really surprising that AT&T’s plan of innovation includes buying out T-Mobile, their competitor in the GSM arena?  As Om Malik points out in his post about the merger:

T-Mobile has been pretty experimental and innovative. … AT&T, on the other hand, has the innovation of a lead pencil.

So what does this mean, other than the probable demise of some really great commercials featuring Charles Barkley?  Let’s look at this, shall we?  This leaves AT&T, Verizon and Sprint as the three major wireless companies in the US.  There are smaller companies out there, but we’re not talking about them.  Three major companies.  For the whole US.  Don’t like AT&T?  You would have Two other major choices.  So much for that invisble hand

Now before we go any further, let me point out that we have all ready heard AT&T say that in no way would this affect prices.  As their press release said so quickly:

“The U.S. wireless industry is one of the most fiercely competitive markets in the world and will remain so after this deal. … The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where a large majority of consumers can choose from five or more wireless providers.”

Only one small problem with that. It always seems as if less competition allows companies to drive the price up whenever they please, since there is no incentive for them to keep prices low.  T-Mobile USA has been fairly aggressive in offering cheaper voice and data plans which has kept the prices in the market low enough. That thorn in AT&T’s side will be gone.  After that, where are you going to go?  Verizon?  Why? They will be following suit with the same excuses as AT&T because suddenly they can.  Sprint?  Possibly, but for how long before Verizon buys them?  Cricket?  US Cellular?  Pardon me while I laugh, French-like at you. 

No, the only real winners here are AT&T and Deutsche Telekom.  And given the climate in Washington, this deal will pass.  It may take a few months until all the screaming from consumers dies down, but it will indeed pass.  So enjoy the Barkley commercial while you can.

The More You Know (And Shooting Star)

Quite a bit has happened this week. The world is fixated on the growing Japanese nuclear problem, but one thing I keep wondering about is that since Japan is the acknowledged leader in robotic technology, why haven’t we been seeing more robotic technology not only in the nuclear problem but also search and rescue from the earthquake and tsunami?  I’m sure the technology is being used in some way, but there is nothing newsworthy.  Odd.

Speaking of the earthquake, Only 6 hours later and we had a full blown article with citations about the earthquake and tsunami including facts about the quake as well as international responses.  That is what the internet is really all about.  Also, the tsunami warning system took only 12 minutes after the 8.9 magnitude quake hit Sendai on Friday for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to alert emergency workers in California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska that a potentially catastrophic tsunami was heading their way. Considering the waves were moving at approximately 500 miles per hour, that is money and lives saved. BTW, some want to gut the funding for this, because saving lives obviously it isn’t that important.

Senator Al Franken was at SXSW in Austin to tell everyone there the obvious:  If Net Neutrality rules were deleted, then the terrorists corporations have won.  Franken, who has his own problems with the FCC’s regulations, accused conservatives of hijacking the Internet debate. “They’ll tell you that putting rules in place to preserve Net neutrality as it exists today amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, a talking point deserves a place alongside death panels and Obama’s a Muslim.”  Not long after that AT&T announced they were going to cap download limits.  Journalists still have yet to see the connection.

Speaking of journalist not doing their jobs, Anonymous released the long awaited bank of America documents.  Since all the TV journalists were standing amongst the rubble in Sendai to show that they were “on top of the news”, this was easily forgotten. Granted, the back door dealings that brought the world economy to its knees isn’t as sexy a shot as standing next to a tanker dry docked by nature a mile from the beach but shouldn’t someone be talking about it?

Finally in some good news, Microsoft and the government felled the giant spam farm Rustock, lessening spam worldwide by about 40 percent.  A lawsuit by Microsoft that was unsealed at the company’s request late today triggered several coordinated raids last Wednesday that took down Rustock, a botnet that infected millions of computers with malicious code in order to turn them into a massive spam-sending network. So you can thank Microsoft for less spam about fake watches and fake viagra in your mailbox today.  Makes up for the fact that this week they killed off the Zune player.

The More You Know (And Shooting Star)

Well, the weekend is finally here and time for all the other news out there. And it appears this week’s theme is security, or lack thereof.

Let us start off with a little talking point busting from Gizmodo.

“While discussing legislative measures concerning cyber terrorism, several legislative aides on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee said that we need to protect ourselves from hackers who could open Hoover Dam and kill thousands. But is that scenario even possible?”

In a word, no.  From Peter Soeth, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the power-generating facility on the Arizona-Nevada state line:

"I’d like to point out that this is not a factual example, because Hoover Dam and important facilities like it are not connected to the internet. These types of facilities are protected by multiple layers of security, including physical separation from the internet, that are in place because of multiple security mandates and good business practices."

As Giz points out, this “non-factual example” can be traced back to a USA Today article from 2001, that told America of all the apocalyptic things this country could endure from cyber-hackers, including the disastrous scenario where someone opens the floodgate to the Hoover dam, killing  untold numbers of people.  Wasn’t true then, not true now.  But don’t let the facts stand in the way of good talking point. 

However, what is true is that someone repeatedly penetrated the computer network of the company that runs the Nasdaq Stock Market during the past year, and federal investigators are trying to identify the perpetrators and their purpose, according to people familiar with the matter. Supposedly, the exchange’s trading platform—the part of the system that executes trades—wasn’t compromised. However, it couldn’t be determined which other parts of Nasdaq’s computer network were accessed. Given the fact that the bulk of the various stock exchanges run on algorithms these days, messing around with the trading platform could have some serious consequences, which is one reason why the government considers the trading floor as a matter of national security, along with the pretty secure Hoover dam.

And finally, January 31, marks the fourth anniversary of the battle of Boston from the Moonites.  For those with a short attention span, the Cartoon Network, in a guerilla marketing campaign decided to place lots of battery powered lite-brites of the characters from the Aqua Teen Hunger Force not only in Boston, but in cities across America.  By all accounts, these “ads” had been in place for at least two weeks, turning themselves on during the evenings and turning themselves off during the day.  And on January 31, 2007, the city of Boston realized that they were all over and proceeded to shut the city down in a state of panic.  The mayor was angry.  He had a right to be, but given the fact that the boxes had been in place for two weeks, he should have fired his police chief.  And while two people were eventually arrested, neither one of them were the person who had thought up the campaign that caused the city to be locked down. 

So stay safe this weekend and be careful out there.

The Internet Never Forgets

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post about the European Union debating a bill that would give net users the option to have old data about themselves deleted.  France’s President Sarkozy said last year: “Regulating the Internet to correct the excesses and abuses that come from the total absence of rules is a moral imperative!”  Strong words.  France’s leadership at the coming G8 summit also signifies more dialogue, as Sarkozy hopes to discuss the right on an international stage.

I mention this again, because in January of this year, Google refused Spain’s request to remove 90 links concerning certain plaintiffs. Many of the links Spain wanted to remove included newspaper articles and information from public record, often painting the plaintiffs in a bad light. Besides arguing that the process would be “expensive” (as every company does), Google argued that such a request would violate the “objectivity” of the Internet search.

The problem is that both the President of France and the corporate entity Google are right.

Now many of us have had a moment (or two) where we are less than perfect.  The only problem is that these days, those moments can be captured and placed on the net for everyone to see, forever (or close to it).  A “right to forget” law could stop us from being permanently held to ransom by unguarded actions from our past. Point for le President.

However, if that memory is currently part of a public record; i.e., newspapers or courts, then any researcher has a right to be able to find such records.  To “forget” is to destroy the entire idea of archiving. Point for le Google.

As I originally wrote, this whole idea becomes complicated when going beyond the personal.  In the case of corporate personhood, this could possibly be used as a tool to whitewash the past.  Union Carbide and Bhopal India?  History to be remembered or an embarrassing “corporate moment” that should be left in the past?  As someone once said, “Laws are not made to be broken, they are made to be interpreted.”  Given a poorly written law and room full of smart lawyers, you can start to see where history could be rewritten because certain things could no longer “exist”.

While I have had more than my share of bad moments, I will grudgingly own up to them.  Mainly because I know that while some people never forgive, the fact is, for now, the internet never forgets.

Faster Internet, Kill, Kill!

There have been some developments abroad since a couple of days ago.  At first, it looked like the country of Egypt had taken a half hearted approach to shutting down.  As of right now, this is no longer the case.   The country is in lockdown mode (the link will show you how long it takes information to hit a site from certain locations.  Cairo’s status means nothing is coming in or going out). According to reports, Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, Etisalat Misr, and all their customers and partners are, for the moment, off the air.  Additionally blocked are Blackberry service and SMS. This is different from Iran’s attempt during their protests in that this is much more thorough.  The Egyptian government’s actions tonight have essentially wiped their country from the global map. How will the country react?  We shall see.

The actions bring us back to the US, where yet again congress is working on bills to allow the President a “Kill Switch” to the internet in case of a cybersecurity attack.  The premise sounds innocent enough:  ‘Critical infrastructure’ areas could effectively be shut down temporarily in case of a cyber attack from wherever.  The fact is, the country is indeed vulnerable from such an attack and something is needed to prevent such a thing from happening.  But there lies the problem. 

First, some of the pieces are not owned by the government; they are owned by businesses.  The idea of the government coming in and shutting a company down in the name of Homeland security does not sit well with some people, as it should. However, speed on the internet is of prime importance.  If the country was under a cyber attack, the ability to move with all necessary speed becomes paramount.  Waiting for a board of directors to give their consent in the time of attack does not work. 

Second, as the bill stands currently, the process of such an action, if law, is where most companies have questions.  The main point is that, as it is currently written, the bill would ban courts from reviewing executive branch decrees.  No review?  You mean Yahoo would have to accept in good faith that the government would want to shut it down because of an attack? According to Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members, hold on:

"The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."

The point has merit.  Without the court’s review, you are allowing the government to set up martial law over the internet.  Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book states:

"No amount of tightening of what constitutes ‘critical infrastructure’ will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review.  Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."

So as this bill winds through congress, look to the east and realize that under the right circumstances and the wrong laws, you too could feel like you are in Cairo this morning.  Just a thought.