One of the BIG probs that Klout and others face with advertisers and marketers that consider these influence scores is that they're missing something important. Influence only matters to marketers to the extent that it moves some needle, whether that be sales of their products or brand awareness. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to measure if these influence scores correlate in any way to either of those metrics.
The way this is handled w/TV today, is also a bit of a black art, where every few month surveys are run to poll users on brand awareness shortly after a campaign has been run. This isn't a great way to measure but advertisers are accustomed to these surveying methods. This is why online advertising has seemed so attractive to advertisers. With online advertising, it's easier to measure whether people clicked on an ad and took other actions.
Until companies like Klout, Peerindex and Empire Avenue can substantiate the correlations between their scores and useful metrics for the advertisers, I don't see the level of activity they're seeing as anything more that marketers putting their experimental budgets to work. These don't last for ever, and if they don't find a way to measure results soon, they won't last much longer ;)
She seems to forget that the reason for the groping was to make people so uncomfortable that they would submit to the scanners. I guess it's working somewhat, people don't want to be molested in airports, so when faced w/cancer inducing machines versus not flying (for biz or to see a loved one), they choose the machines. This should not be an endorsement of her groping techniques.
Imagine if instead of groping they shot people. "We only had to shoot very very very few people, most comply and go through the 4th Amend. stripping machines." ;)
What surprised me most about this was the ACLU's position on the matter. In an LA Times article on this ( http://lat.ms/lQlzRF), here's what they say:
"The American Civil Liberties Union questioned the constitutionality of the bill but so far has not opposed the measure because it said the bill appeared to be narrowly drawn."
While this idea that it may be narrowly construed on the basis of other exceptions to the 4th Amendment may be so, it appears to be just another effort to chip away at those rights. When combined with the recent SCOTUS decision on giving police leeway in home searches ( http://lat.ms/kSizRU), any advances in 4th Amend. rights that might have been made by Sen. Leahy's updating of the ECPA have been obliterated, turning the 4th Amend. into more of a novelty than something truly enforceable. At this stage, our country should just stop embarrassing itself and remove it from the Constitution altogether. We can explain to our kids that the reason the Amendments go from the 3rd to the 5th is that now that we have absolute trust in our gov't and corporations, we no longer need it ;)
Since reading this line earlier today, it has stuck with me as an example that technologists too often behave purely on curiosity, but without consideration for the consequences of their action. So Binney really believed that his technology would be used on people outside of the country, but it was inconceivable to him that it would be directed at our own citizens? Really?
We see this happening over and over again. The Gatling gun example is one. Leó Szilárd (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd#Views_on_the_use_of_nuclear_we apons), was also remorseful of the use the atomic bomb he helped invent. We see this in medicine w/DNA sequencing (ie. 23and me) and gene splicing. I'm not suggesting we turn into Luddites, but by same token we do need ethics to play a role in technological and scientific discovery. Today, I fear ethics don't play an important role, and there's a lot of "just do it, and we can apologize later" mentality.
The folks espousing "singularity" are the latest to really give me the creeps w/their obsession of merging man and machine without taking into account the full ethical and social considerations of those actions.
Why don't the developing nations simply create their own ACTA/TPP group and discuss these issues outside of WIPO muhc like the developed countries have. Forcing themselves to remain confined to a system that clearly isn't working in their interest makes little sense. Not that they should check out of WIPO, just like the developed nations haven't stopped participating, but the developing countries should just a run a parallel effort as well.
If Bluehost issued their statements in a press release, I'm assuming they would be liable for libel, and if it was utterances then slander would be the term of art here. With that said, shouldn't the Defendants' next action be to sue Bluehost? Certainly harm can be proved here, and even if small, it would send out an important message I would think.
They did. I just ran into Fortune's version on the CNNMoney site which is a collaboration of various Time Warner properties including CNN, Fortune and Money Magazine. You can find it here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/09/inside-apple/. Like the other sites, it's a teaser leading users to the newsstand or iPad versions.
All of the links you provided to the web sites that wrote about this story, either provided super abridged versions (like one anecdote) or a link or a mention to Fortune's iPad app w/a teaser that there are a whole lot more details to be obtained there. While I agree w/you conceptually, I believe Fortune may get lots of downloads of their app as a result of all of this press attention on their story.
Given the fact that many people who care about Jobs probably own an iPad, this was a pretty smart way of generating buzz around their "free" app from which they can then generate $4.99 per issue, plus the premium ad revenue they can generate from its pages. It would be interesting to compare their ROI on this approach versus simply an ad model on their Web site. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was a bad idea. After reading all the links you listed above, I'm actually more curious about the other anecdotes not discussed.
Sounds like they did what you espouse for bands, giving away some MP3s for free in order to then get people coming back to pay for a more complete compilation ;)
I had the exact same reaction you did when I read the dissent from those judges. Understanding the ease with which profiles, even those on Facebook or Linkedin, can be faked, clearly means that the judges in the majority have a depth of understanding. The dissenting judges sound more like people who think they "get it" but really don't ;) Over confident about stuff they really don't understand deeply...those are the scariest type of people.
I'm a bit surprised that it has taken this long for anyone to find out the contractual relationship and the nature of the copyright assignment between Righthaven and Stephens Media. I'm wondering why this has not come up in the MediaNews suit? Doesn't there have to be proof of copyright ownership for a plaintiff to sue? Hopefully we will find a similar relationship w/MediaNews as there was w/Stephens Media so we can bring all this nonsense to a merciful end.
It would be interesting to do a comparison between the Daily's metrics/stats and those of SkyGrid which is a news aggregator that tracks memes as well as news on any topic. Their apps are on the key mobile platforms, iPad, iPhone and Android.
Where Prof. Ohm talks about this in terms of inferences, I think of it in terms of context, but on the whole I agree with him. Let's use your examples to explain the problem.
Example 1: what if your past purchases at your local butcher were then made available to insurance companies for the purpose of pricing your health insurance? Perhaps, they don't get just yours, but everyone in your neighborhood and decide that because on average people in your 'hood are obese then you will be charged a significantly higher health insurance premium. While you had no problem with this info being used towards giving you discounts and coupons on future purchases, you might be much less comfortable with this same information being used towards figuring out your health insurance premiums.
Example 2: Unbeknown to you, one of your very close friends since college has been traveling to Syria quite frequently, but since he lives across the country, you're only aware that he has been traveling on business. Turns out his business has to do with buying Syrian antiquities but the people he has been interacting with are somewhat suspect. Because the two of you communicate every month or so, and you also communicate somewhat regularly with some other mutual friends, inferences start getting drawn between all of you regarding your potential involvement with terrorism. Getting these inferences a wrong when it comes to recommending you a different calling plan may be no big deal, but getting it wrong when it comes to whether you might be related to a terrorist, is a very different story.
Example 3: The insurance companies have decided that correlating your activities online with your propensity for risk is a better indicator than whether you get speeding tickets. In some cases it's not just risk, but the fact that your reading preferences and the frequency of your shopping indicates a sedentary lifestyle, and hence you present risks behind the wheel as well as raise issues around longevity.
In other words, information that may be harmless in one context, when viewed in another can become very uncomfortable for you. It's very possible that you might not participate in various programs if you were aware of this. Since the value proposition that some of these data collectors gain is the externality value of your information, then you should at least have some control or be aware of it so you can make an educated decision about sharing this information about yourself. Opt-out is an unethical concept on its face because it readily implies that you should have to take an action to not have your information used in ways that you are not aware of.
Anyway, sorry for the long response, but the privacy issue is that in fact no information is good or bad, private or non-private (ie. lots of people I don't know, know where I live), it's more that in different contexts it can take on different values. Something that could be fine in one context may be very detrimental in another, so you should have the right to decide the context (or use right) under which you're willing to share information about yourself.
Now let's hope that judges apply similar common sense to put a stop to the nonsense that was the domain seizures executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Dept. of Homeland Security.
These days, people have phones with them at all times.
I'd consider replacing the word "phones" with "communications devices" and then there's less astonishment over this evolving status quo. Just like people thought that phones would rid of us of the telegraph and email would rid us of "snail mail", what we have instead found is that each mode of communication has its place. While some of what we did with one mode we now do with another, there are situations in which each has its place. Even between TXT and email, there are times I find one more suitable than the other even though most people I know carry devices that support both.
Somewhat ironically, while typing this note a friend called me out of the blue and I got really frustrated :) Forced him to schedule a time :)
Actually, this ruling seemed consistent with gov't's access to LUDs, where they can find out the numbers dialed from a particular phone. However, the rationale given for this capability, whether w/phone #s or IP addresses, is worrisome to me. This idea that the fact that the phone company is a 3rd party in the transaction which then breaks the privacy expectation between the two parties communicating, creates all sorts of trust problems for cloud-based services.
With analog phone calls, phone companies have not been recording phone calls (as far as we know ;). However, when you start to consider emails, or file hosting, or CRM systems, or... we begin to see the problem of having a 3rd party break the expectation of privacy. While the Stored Communications Act supposedly protects stored emails, this seems at conflict with the rationale given for providing LUDs or IP addresses. I guess this is yet another tension in our privacy laws.
I'm hopeful that as encryption can be performed faster, we will see greater protection of content, not because of legislation, but because of technology. This won't solve the LUDs and IP address issue, but at least the content can be protected beyond the whims of politicians.