Reed Hastings is very sad. I know, because today I got a very somber email from the Netflix Co-Founder and CEO (also posted here). He's sad about the very negative reaction of Netflix subscribers to the recent fee increase. He's also sad about something called "Qwikster" and red envelopes.
I was going to write up a post analyzing the causes of Mr. Hastings' sadness and how he plans to make things right, but then I saw this:
Frankly, I really don't understand the point of this apology letter. If you're not going to do anything to address the real cause of your (former) subscribers' dissatisfaction, why even bother bringing more attention to the issue? Seems like when you say you're trying to "make things right," it might be a good idea to actually try to make things right, not worse.
I get lots of (legitimate) email, intended for other people, sent to my email address. I guess it's easy to screw up your own address and wind up at mine -- or mine is just a popular one to use as a fake, when people don't want to supply their real one. Just today, I received an email from Remax, Northern Illinois, thanking me for registering on their site (and conveniently providing me with the password "I" used to sign up), which I didn't, an order confirmation for tickets to see Blue Man Group at the Pioneer Center (in Reno), which I did not purchase, and an "Acknowledgment Letter" from an attorney (maybe) with attachments and no message body aside from the following:
NOTE: This e-mail message (including attachments) is subject to attorney-client privilege and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. This e-mail may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521, which provides criminal penalties for your use of this email without permission. This message may contain Protected Health Information covered under HIPAA Rules and HITECH Standards including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements of the HIPAA Security rule in 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.308, 164.310,164.312 and 164.316, including any amendments thereto. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy.
Now, although I have to admit that I was initially impressed by all those fancy numbers and § symbols, a few things struck me as odd. First of all, if the information is "intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed," and it was addressed to me, wouldn't that mean it's intended for me? Second, with absolutely no information in the body of the email, other than this warning, how am I supposed to know for sure that it was not intended for me? And, finally, if you mistakenly send someone else's confidential information directly to me (not because of an email server routing error), how is it that I am the one in danger of "criminal penalties" for opening my own mail?
As I have no interest in reading this person's confidential information, I have not opened the attachments and have no plans to do so. And although I'm not even certain a threat like this is enforceable, I will be canceling my email account, destroying my hard drive, and leaving the country for a while. Wish me luck.
from the pay-no-attention-to-the-men-beyond-the-checkpoint dept
We've written quite a bit, recently, about the more controversial actions of the TSA and their airport screening practices. And now there's a somewhat amusing story that demonstrates why many people think that doing things like groping little children -- and claiming that it's not only proper, but necessary -- is really just security theater. Two travelers, stranded at Dallas-Fort Worth airport, made the local news after filming themselves goofing around in the terminal, after hours. A DFW airport board member was not amused and vows that this kind of thing is "not going to happen again." However, this isn't the first time something like this has happened (though it might be a first at DFW), so it kind of makes you wonder why the security folks hadn't already taken steps to prevent this. Of course, it looks like these guys were just having fun, but doesn't it seem like a couple of guys wandering unchecked in a nearly empty terminal might be a bit more of a security risk than a toddler's underwear? Apparently, the experts don't think so:
Aviation security experts who have seen the video say it doesn’t show any major security concerns because the two guys were ticketed passengers who had already been screened by the TSA.
Hmm, so, the fact that they were "ticketed" and "already screened" means that there's nothing that they could have gotten their hands on, as they made their way through the terminal (at one point, entering the kitchen of a restaurant), that might pose a threat to other travelers? While I don't think anyone should be freaking out about these incidents, they do seem to lend credence to the idea that many of the actions taken by the TSA are just for show, while obvious security holes are left wide open. They'll go out of their way to make sure a baby isn't the next underwear bomber, but can't even send someone to remind some marauding men to stick to the designated passenger areas and quit messing with airport property? Good show.
JNomics points us to a Marshall Kirkpatrick post on ReadWriteWeb about "How Open Data is Used Against the Poor," in which Kirkpatrick discusses an article and research about the effects of the digitization of land records in Bangalore. Apparently, as a result of the increased access to the data (for those with computers), middle and upper income people were able to exploit details found in the records as leverage for gaining land ownership from the poor.
Kirkpatrick and the author of the original article, Mike Gurstein, use this example to make the point that simply opening up data is often not really enough to benefit the broader population, and further, that it can simply promote the widening of the divide between the rich and the poor. Both argue for coupling open data with efforts that insure "effective use" for the most people - i.e., leveling the playing field by essentially controlling access to the data or delaying openness until tools and policies are put in place to insure equal footing for everyone. Kirkpatrick concludes his post with the following warning:
... if you want all parts of society to benefit from the opening of public data, then simply opening it up and allowing the most ferociously competitive people in society to grab a hold of it may not be a good way to impact the world positively.
This seems like a bit of an overstatement. There are always going to be those who are better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies. An example from history would be the invention of the printing press. Of course the greater availability of books that followed initially provided a much bigger benefit to the educated than to the illiterate. However, not only were more people able to take advantage of cheaper, more abundant, books as literacy rates increased -- the abundance itself helped to drive that increase. Similarly, while this example from Bangalore shows that, initially, the more well connected have been able to take better advantage of the opening up of land record data, it is not difficult to imagine how the less fortunate will also benefit. The opening up of the data has exposed many problems with the records, allowing for the possibility that those issues will be addressed, and more care will be taken to guard against such issues in the future. Also, there will certainly be opportunities for some enterprising people among the poor to take advantage of the newly available data -- opportunities which did not exist at all when the information was effectively hidden. After all, the "ferociously competitive people" didn't actually "grab hold of" the data -- it's still open for access by anyone.
This case does demonstrate how the growing divide between the digital haves and have-nots is self-perpetuating, and it is certainly worthwhile to pursue efforts to close that gap by promoting education and the development of more widely available, cheaper technology. And efforts should be made to insure that access to open data is not abused by the better off to gain advantage over the poor. But in the end, the open data itself is not the culprit.
While others, like News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, continue to make a lot of noise about cutting off or punishing news aggregators like Google News, Japan's Nikkei newspaper has decided to take some action in the war against the "freeloaders" by forbidding any links to its content without explicit permission. Apparently, Nikkei believes not only that "unauthorized" links would somehow circumvent its paywall, but also that it is such an incredibly important source that free referrals are neither necessary nor welcome. Although most of Nikkei's Japanese competition apparently also locks up content behind paywalls, going beyond a paywall to actively block inbound links seems very short-sighted, in that it will serve to drive traffic and attention elsewhere. It's still pretty amazing how certain organizations don't seem to have any understanding of how the internet works.
In her recent New York Times op-ed, Maureen Dowd takes aim at Google, blaming it for the sorry state of the newspaper industry. Perhaps in hopes of winning people over to the newspapers' side in the argument over how much Google should be profiting from their content, Dowd spends a lot of the article attempting to make the reader fear Google, trying to paint the company as anti-privacy and bent on "world domination."
But there is a vaguely ominous Big Brother wall in the lobby of the headquarters here that scrolls real-time Google searches -- porn queries are edited out -- from people around the world. You could probably see your own name if you stayed long enough. In one minute of watching, I saw the Washington association where my sister works, the Delaware beach town where my brother vacations, some Dave Matthews lyrics, calories Panera, females feet, soaps in depth and Douglas Mangum, whoever he is.
The uselessness of this statement is hard to overstate. If you stayed long enough you'd see your name? She saw the names of places where her sister works and her brother vacations? Ever look at a phone book or a map, Maureen? All she was seeing was evidence that people are looking for information.
And that is where Google adds value: it helps to connect people with the information they want. If Dowd would just pause the dramatics long enough, maybe she would recognize that this concept sounds very familiar. Just like newspapers have always done, Google tries to find information that its users want, and deliver it to them in a way that is useful -- and news stories are just one example of what people want Google to find for them. Dowd quotes Rupert Murdoch calling what Google does "stealing." But, Google is no more "stealing" the information to which it links than newspapers steal the events on which they report. It does not take much thinking to see the parallels. But hey, why take time to think when you can engage in some juicy fear-mongering and hyperbole?
Like many others, Dowd also makes the mistake of equating the decline of newspapers with the end of journalism, ignoring the evidence that says this is simply not true. We've already pointedoutexamples of how journalism can not only survive but thrive apart from physical newspapers. Newspapers were valuable when they were the most convenient, useful way to deliver the news. The content itself was always practically free. But the value of the content was used draw eyeballs to ads -- to give advertisers paid access to the community of readers. With the newspaper format now dying, entrepreneurs will find new ways to leverage the still-existent value of the free content to sell something scarce.
Fear-mongering, making misleading statements, ignoring evidence, not understanding your own business -- it's ironic that, while attempting to blame others for the woes of her own industry, Dowd makes so many of the mistakes that are really contributing to its decline.
With many newspapers struggling to stay in business, a lot of ideas have been tossed around about how to keep existing papers alive. One idea, which has reached the US Senate in the form of a bill introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, is to allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, which would exempt them from taxes on subscription and advertising revenue, while also allowing them to raise funds via donations, similar to how public broadcasting companies operate. This approach would seem to have many potential issues. First of all, to qualify for the program, a paper would no longer be allowed publish editorial endorsements. This could have the twin effect of chilling editorial commentary in support of or against various candidates' positions, and driving more bias into the reporting. It would also put the government in charge of what could or could not show up in a paper's editorial pages. Second, to be successful, the papers would be heavily dependent on donations, which could raise questions about objectivity. But the biggest problem with this approach is that it simply props up a failing business model, rather than forcing the newspapers to adjust to the new realities of the marketplace. In the senators own words:
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.
Whether the loss of newspapers (as opposed to journalism) is a tragedy "for our democracy" is certainly debatable. But the senator is right about the business model being broken. And if that's the case, wouldn't it be wiser to experiment with new, better models, rather than put the old one on life support?
It looks like Google has had enough of the taxes, rules, and regulations associated with hosting its data in various countries around the world. Its solution? Floating data centers anchored beyond national boundaries. The idea seems pretty ridiculous on its face. The costs associated with maintaining a fleet of barges, in addition to the challenges that would arise regarding server maintenance, power requirements (wave power? really?), and security (protection from real pirates), make the effectiveness of such a solution highly questionable. To make this story even more ridiculous, Google has filed for a patent on the idea, presumably so that it can reap the huge rewards when everyone else realizes that hosting data at sea is the way to go. To be fair, this is likely just a defensive patent filing -- given Google's past patent activities. But what does it say about the patent system when a company has to waste the resources of the patent office, on an idea that's probably never intended to be implemented, with the possible effect of preventing someone else from innovating in a related area? And, even though the idea as proposed may be silly, what if someone else could make something similar work? Do we want a single company to have the exclusive right to attempt something like this? The patent system is supposed to promote progress, not be an anchor dragging it down.
Bill Gates is the target of so much humor and ire, that it hardly seems worthwhile to make fun of him most of the time. However, sometimes he sets himself up so perfectly, that it's impossible to resist. Today at the Microsoft Global Automotive Summit, Gates and Bill Ford Jr. were extolling the virtues of technology and how it will help cars of the future to fix themselves and avoid accidents. Addressing summit participants, Mr. Gates (yes, the creator of notoriously crash-prone Windows) told auto industry members that their goal should be to create a car that won't crash. (Alanis, take note: that's ironic.) If I'm Bill Ford, I have to be thinking, "Uh, Bill? Maybe your goal should be to create an operating system that won't crash."
A couple of months ago we wrote about how we just couldn't understand why there are so many efforts to develop mobile TV when a compelling use case hasn't been found. Well, looks like we spoke too soon. Apparently "leading entertainment executives" believe that babies will be clamoring for mobile TV as a 21st century replacement for the rattle. Kids are given rattles because they chew on, throw, pound, and break things. Rattles are cheap. While the age at which kids get their first phone keeps getting younger, will that many parents actually try to pacify a screaming baby by handing him an expensive, breakable, video-enabled cell phone? As we've noted before, mobile video is unlikely to catch on if no specific, realistic need exists. But of course entertainment execs, who see everything as a platform for their content, won't pass up a chance to try to hook the next generation of viewers.
A few weeks ago we wrote about how the reaction to Internet hunting seemed a bit overblown, with several states proposing legislation to ban a practice that seems unlikely to attract many participants. Apparently the reaction wasn't overblown enough. This week, Virginia Rep. Tom Davis decided to make it a federal issue, introducing a bill to make hosting such a service a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Though it may sound a bit excessive, there will likely be little opposition to the bill, which is being backed by an odd coalition including the Humane Society, the Safari Club, and the NRA.
The idea of Internet "hunting" has many people -- hunters included -- up in arms (so to speak). Now lawmakers in several states are pushing legislation to outlaw the practice, by requiring shooters to be present at the scene of the hunt and in possession of the firearm at the time of the shooting. The CEO of the Humane Society of the United States wants the federal government to get involved, even raising the issue of homeland security. Though it's understandable that 'net hunting would be considered offensive (or at least particularly unsporting) by many, the whole thing sounds pretty absurd. How many people are seriously dropping 300 bucks to click a mouse and... um... drop a buck? Has it really become such an issue that state governments and the US Congress really need to get involved?
Who knew? Apparently cruise control kills! You thought you were being a good citizen, conserving fuel by using your car more efficiently and avoiding varying speeds that can cause traffic problems and accidents. But, the reality was you were causing all sorts of problems -- at least in Belgium. The Belgian government has decided to outlaw cruise control on certain stretches of road in an attempt to reduce accidents. Now, public safety is an admirable goal; but it is unrealistic to think that making cruise control illegal will be of much help. Enforcement would seem to be nearly impossible. To "catch" a driver in the act of breaking the law would require an accident in which the state of the cruise control during the crash has to be knowable after it has occurred -- or would require a really honest driver. While the rise of car black boxes makes collecting vehicle state information possible, once you've reached the point where a black box reading is needed, you'd think that the problem was much bigger than someone relying too much on cruise control. Speaking of which, shouldn't speed and recklessness laws cover the effects of using cruise control inappropriately?
I've been using TLS to read Techdirt for over an year. My browser shows it's currently using a Cloudflare certificate. So what's really changed?
While we've "supported" HTTPS/SSL/TLS for a while now, it's only since June that we've defaulted to it and made sure all Techdirt resources are served over a secure connection. But the news here is Namecheap coming on board as a sponsor of that move.
My point? You said that Techdirt is "not real code" because it's Wordpress. It's not. Never was. I thought that, you being a genius and all, it might satisfy your intellectual curiosity to know something about the actual origins of the code. So my point was to add a spark to your already brilliant light. But, um, never mind.
Nothing has changed and your votes are being registered. If you vote on a comment and you're not signed in, then you reload the page, of course the button doesn't stick. You're not signed in. We can't assume you're the same person. The behavior you're seeing is expected, correct, and has been exactly the same since the day we launched comment ratings. Feel free to vote as often as you'd like.
Just in case you're interested, Techdirt is not on Wordpress (though perhaps it will be someday). It is run on custom code loosely based on the old slashcode, which we ditched almost a decade ago.
Or you could go to the preferences page (signed out) or account page (signed in) and set the preference to disable the bar.
This is the new version of Wibiya's toolbar, which we're trying out with the hope that our readers will find it more useful than the old one. One thing the old one had, which the new is missing, was a button to collapse the bar. We've already contacted Wibiya about it -- we think there should be a way to collapse the bar, without completely disabling it.
After some investigation, it appears that the problem comes from a combination of the HTTPS Everywhere Firefox extension and the implementation of the Facebook Like button in the Wibiya toolbar (at the bottom of the page). The other Like button we include below the text of each post doesn't appear to have the same problem. We've removed the Like button from the toolbar and reported the problem to Wibiya.
Yeah, we read our posts. Haven't seen this problem though.
However, we have received a few messages in the past 12 hours about the issue. We're looking into it, but it appears to be related to a Firefox extension called HTTPS Everywhere. For some reason, that extension and the Like button appear to not be playing well together. We don't have any more details than that, yet. But we'll let you know when we do.
You actually can disable the bottom toolbar by setting the "Bottom Toolbar" preference on the "My Account" page (http://www.techdirt.com/myaccount.php) or the "Preferences" page (for non-registered users - http://www.techdirt.com/preferences.php).
We do try to offer our users useful tools, not annoy them. Feedback on our site features is always welcome.
I agree with that, but how about infrastructure spending?
That's a good point, but Mike did say the gov't "almost never" creates jobs that are good for the economy. We heard a lot about "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, when the last big stimulus was being proposed, but a majority of the spending did not go to such projects. Politicians generally use big spending opportunities to reward or pay off constituent groups -- not promote productivity, efficiency, or growth.
Should there be a role for the gov't in funding such projects? That's open for debate. But it never seems to be what politicians actually do when trying to "create jobs."
Several of the comments seem to take issue with me for suggesting something should have been done to these guys. However, that was not what I was suggesting, at all. I was merely pointing out how silly it makes the TSA look. If it's necessary to basically feel up kids, check a baby's diaper, and harass elderly people, why wouldn't in also be "important" to have something in place to prevent people running wild inside the terminal after hours? These guys may not have been a threat, but the *potential* threat from an unguarded terminal (even if minimal) would seem to rate higher than that from letting kids pass through security, unmolested.
Thought I was pretty clear. I don't really care that they didn't stop these guys. It just doesn't make sense that they put on such a big show at the checkpoint, but seem to be paying little attention to what goes on beyond it.
I agree that what these guys did posed no danger. Wasn't saying that it was a threat. The point is with how ridiculously overboard the TSA goes with screening at the security checkpoint, it seems kind of absurd that they don't seem to care about people doing whatever they want in the terminal.
Our business is not dependent on any one of those things that you listed. We could easily switch web servers, "content delivery network systems," ad providers, tools, sharing buttons and toolbars, whenever we'd like, without destroying our business.
Mike (like Fred Wilson) was simply saying, don't be reliant on any one single platform or 3rd party system for your entire business. If we built our whole business around the Facebook Like button, then we'd be in serious trouble if Facebook decided to drop the Like button.
Now, you could say that we're totally reliant on the internet or electricity, and you'd be correct. But it's a pretty safe bet, for now, that neither of those things will disappear at a whim, or due to some company having financial trouble.