I was interviewed on the Takeaway recently, and they played the sequence today. The subject was ICANN’s expansion of the gTLD space. The other speaker was Cyrus Namazi, vice president of Domain Name System Services at ICANN.
For some reason I sounded really hoarse….
I am mostly OK with cloud-based services that keep a master set of my files so long as I have a complete set on my hard drive too. That’s how Dropbox works. I give up some privacy — if Dropbox gets a subpoena or a National Security Letter they’ll give up my data and I’ll never know, plus the stuff is no doubt scanned in transit by You Know Who. But I get a lot of convenience, plus the security of being able to recover accidentally deleted files. And if something is really private, I could just keep it off the Dropbox.
Where I draw the line is cloud-only services like Google Drive or Box.com. This ITworld article, How Box.com allowed a complete stranger to delete all my files illustrates why.
Photo Copyright (c) 2009 Derrich, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Harold Feld is always worth reading. Usually he posts on telecoms; today he has a great read on the issues surrounding the application to ICANN for .kosher. Surprisingly, the issues include the role of he US government in bringing concerns to ICANN, and whether objections to .kosher will get the same hearing as objections to .halal.
See Is Sauce for the .Halal Goose Sauce for the .Kosher Gander At The ICANN Meeting In Durban? for the full scoop.
EFF just took its first act as a full member of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): it filed an objection to the W3C’s plans to put Digital Rights Management (DRM) into HTML5, the next version of the HTML standard. In a statement EFF said,
DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of personal computers from their owners.
You can learn more at EFF’s Why the HTML5 Standard Fight Matters.
I am particularly concerned about this issue because I see a link between DRM and the undermining of anonymity — the heart of most DRM is identifying who is accessing content, and that creates systems which either directly make anonymity more difficult, or map the way for others to implement those systems.
OBDisclosure: I’m a proud member of the EFF Advisory Board.
Nice profile of Susan Crawford, highlighting her campaign against telco internet monopolies, by David Carr in today’s NYT.
A taste of Telecom’s Big Players Hold Back the Future:
Susan Crawford, a professor at [Cardozo School of Law], has written a book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else.
Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was meant to lay down track to foster competition in a new age, allowed cable companies and telecoms to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly. If you are looking for the answer to why much of the developed world has cheap, reliable connections to the Internet while America seems just one step ahead of the dial-up era, her office — or her book — would be a good place to find out.
‘Calm but chilling’ – that’s Susan when she’s doing business; she’s warm and funny when off duty.
Micah L. Sifry, a canny observer of social organizing and the internet, writes a very positive article about Loomio in Can Social Software Change the World? Loomio Just Might.
At its heart, Loomio does just two things. First, it makes it easy for anyone in a Loomio group to initiate a topic for conversation. And second, it makes it easy for any group member to offer a proposal up for a vote. You can vote yes, no, abstain, or block. The software puts the vote results into a pie-chart, so at any point in the conversation about a decision, members of the group can see what the group as a whole is thinking. That’s it. It’s also easy for a group member to form a sub-group, like a committee that works on a narrower topic area.
Group decision-making online is the vacuum in current software architectures. It’s exciting to see initiatives designed to fill this important gap.
Previously: Civilized Discourse Construction Kit.