The New York Times has an article titled How Google Decides to Pull the Plug which talks about the rationale behind the rash of abandoned and cancelled projects that have come out of the Big G in recent months. The article contains the following interesting excerpts

GOOGLE recently set the blogosphere abuzz by announcing that it was pulling the plug on several products.

The victims included Lively, a virtual world that was Google’s answer to Second Life; Dodgeball, a cellphone service aimed at young bar-hoppers who wanted to let their friends know where they were hanging out; Catalog Search, which scanned paper product catalogs so they could be searched online; and Notebook, a simple tool that allowed people to take notes on Web sites they had visited.

Google also said it would stop actively developing Jaiku, a microblogging service similar to Twitter, and instead turn it over to its users as an open-source project they could tinker with as they wished.
…
All of the shuttered projects failed several of Google’s key tests for continued incubation: They were not especially popular with customers; they had difficulty attracting Google employees to develop them; they didn’t solve a big enough problem; or they failed to achieve internal performance targets known as “objectives and key results.”

You’d think that Google, a highly profitable engineer’s playground, would keep supporting quirky side projects as long as someone wanted to work on them. The company, which is best known to consumers for its search engine, is famous in business for promoting innovation by letting engineers devote 20 percent of their time to projects outside their main responsibilities.

But in this difficult economy, even Google is paying more attention to costs.
…
Lively, Google’s entry into three-dimensional virtual worlds, was publicly unveiled last July. Four months later, when the company decided to close it, only 10,000 people had logged into the service over the previous seven days. That was well below the targets set by Google’s quarterly project review process, and far behind Second Life from Linden Lab, which had about half a million users in a similar period.

“We didn’t see that passionate hockey-stick growth in the user base,” said Bradley Horowitz, Google’s vice president for product management. Management decided that the half-dozen people working on Lively could be more productive elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see what the long term effects of these changes in perspective will be on Google's culture around launching new products out of 20% time projects and the veneration of side projects at the Googleplex. One expected change is that employees will be more conservative around what 20% projects they choose to work on so that they don't end up wasting their time on the next Google Page Creator or Google Web Accelerator which is received with initial hype but quickly discontinued because it doesn't see "hockey stick growth in user base".

You can already see this happening somewhat by looking at how many side projects are being shipped as part of Gmail labs. Checking out the list of Gmail labs offerings I see over 30 big and small features that have been added to Gmail as side projects from various individuals and teams at Google. It seems on the surface that a lot of Google employees are betting on tying their side projects to a huge, successful product like Gmail which isn't in danger of being cancelled instead of working on new projects or helping out smaller projects like Dodgeball and Jaiku which eventually got cancelled due to lack of interest.

This expectation that a new Google product will need massive adoption to justify its investment or be cancelled within four months, as was the case with Google Lively, will be a significant dampener new product launches. Reading Paul Buchheit's post on the early days of Gmail I wonder how much time he'd have invested in the project if he was told that Google would cancel the project if it's user base growth wasn't competitive with market leaders like Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail's within four months.

I suspect that the part of Google's DNA which spurs innovation from within is being killed. Then again when you look at Google's long list of acquisitions you realize that a lot of their most successful projects outside of search including Google Maps, Blogger and YouTube were the results of acquisitions. So maybe this culture of internal innovation was already on the way out and the current economic downturn has merely sealed its fate.

Now Playing: Metallica - Fade To Black

 

I've been hearing the term deflation being bandied about by TV news pundits with Japan being used as the popular example of this phenomenon for the past few months. The claim is that if the trend of price drops in the U.S. continues then we will be headed for deflation. When I first saw these stories I wondered what exactly is wrong with falling prices? Well…

Everywhere you look assets are worth less than they were a year ago. Gas prices are lower, house prices are lower, and stock portfolios are lower. At first I considered this a net positive. According to Zillow my house is now worth 10% less than what we paid for it almost two years ago and my 401(k) lost about 35% during the 2008 calendar year. However I treated this as a "correction" since these were in effect paper losses since I bought my house to live in not to flip it and I'm not planning to spend out of my 401(k) until retirement. On the other hand lower gas prices and cheaper consumer goods at Christmas time had a real and positive effect on my bottom line.

In addition, despite the media's claim that people were hoarding we planned to ignore the hype and help the local economy by continuing our plans to have our bathroom remodeled and get a new car later in the year (my wife has her eye on the Ford Flex).

As each week passes I've been less sure of our plans to "help the local economy" and last week's announcement by my employer to eliminate 5,000 jobs within the next 18 months began to make the plans seem downright irresponsible. At this point we've decided to hold off on the purchases and are debating the safest way to hold on the money and still retain value. My behavior sounded familiar and I looked up Wikipedia for information about deflation in Japan it was interesting to see the parallels

Systemic reasons for deflation in Japan can be said to include:

• Fallen asset prices. There was a rather large price bubble in both equities and real estate in Japan in the 1980s (peaking in late 1989). When assets decrease in value, the money supply shrinks, which is deflationary.

• Insolvent companies: Banks lent to companies and individuals that invested in real estate. When real estate values dropped, these loans could not be paid. The banks could try to collect on the collateral (land), but this wouldn't pay off the loan. Banks have delayed that decision, hoping asset prices would improve. These delays were allowed by national banking regulators. Some banks make even more loans to these companies that are used to service the debt they already have. This continuing process is known as maintaining an "unrealized loss", and until the assets are completely revalued and/or sold off (and the loss realized), it will continue to be a deflationary force in the economy. Improving bankruptcy law, land transfer law, and tax law have been suggested (by The Economist) as methods to speed this process and thus end the deflation.

• Insolvent banks: Banks with a larger percentage of their loans which are "non-performing", that is to say, they are not receiving payments on them, but have not yet written them off, cannot lend more money; they must increase their cash reserves to cover the bad loans.

• Fear of insolvent banks: Japanese people are afraid that banks will collapse so they prefer to buy gold or (United States or Japanese) Treasury bonds instead of saving their money in a bank account. This likewise means the money is not available for lending and therefore economic growth. This means that the savings rate depresses consumption, but does not appear in the economy in an efficient form to spur new investment. People also save by owning real estate, further slowing growth, since it inflates land prices.

• Imported deflation: Japan imports Chinese and other countries' inexpensive consumable goods, raw materials (due to lower wages and fast growth in those countries). Thus, prices of imported products are decreasing. Domestic producers must match these prices in order to remain competitive. This decreases prices for many things in the economy, and thus is deflationary.

The crazy thing is that this sounds like a description of the United States of America today. That's when I understood that the threat of a deflationary spiral is very real. If people like me start hoarding cash then businesses get less customers which causes them to lower prices in return. With lower prices, they make less money and thus need to cut costs so they have layoffs. Now the local situation is worse giving people even more conviction in holding on to their cash and so on. The bit about imported goods kicking the butts of locally produced items in the marketplace is also especially apt given the recent drama about the automobile bailout. 

Anyway, it looks like we are at the start of a deflationary spiral. The interesting question is whether there is anything anyone can do to stop it before it fully gets underway.

 

As I read about the U.K. partially nationalizing major banks and the U.S. government's plan to do the same, it makes one wonder how the financial system could have become so broken that these steps are even necessary. The more I read, the more it seems clear that our so called "free" markets had built into the some weaknesses that didn't take into account human nature. Let's start with the following quote from the MSNBC article about the U.K. government investing in major banks

As a condition of the deal, the government has required the banks to pay no bonuses to board members at the banks this year.

British Treasury chief Alistair Darling, speaking with Brown Monday, said it would be "nonsense" for board members to be taking their bonuses. The government also insisted that the bulk of future bonuses be paid in shares to ensure that bonuses encourage management to take a more long-term approach to profit making.

The above statement makes it sound like the board members of the various banks were actually on track to make their bonuses even though the media makes it sound like they are guilty of gross incompetence or some degree of negligence given the current state of the financial markets. If this is the case, how come the vast majority of the largest banks in the world seem to all have the same problem of boards and CEOs that were reaping massive rewards while effectively running the companies into the ground? How come the "free" market didn't work efficiently to discover and penalize these companies before we got to this juncture?

One reason for this problem is outlined by Philip Greenspun in his post Time for corporate governance reform? where he writes

What would it take to restore investor confidence in the U.S. market?  How about governance reform?

Right now the shareholders of a public company are at the mercy of management.  Without an expensive proxy fight, the shareholders cannot nominate or vote for their own representatives on the Board of Directors.  The CEO nominates a slate of golfing buddies to serve on the Board, while he or she will in turn serve on their boards.  Lately it seems that the typical CEO’s golfing buddies have decided on very generous compensation for the CEO, often amount to a substantial share of the company’s profits.  The golfing buddies have also decided that the public shareholders should be diluted by stock options granted to top executives and that the price on those options should be reset every time the company’s stock takes a dive (probably there is a lot of option price resetting going on right now!  Wouldn’t want your CEO to lose incentive).
…
Corporations are supposed to operate for the benefit of shareholders.  The only way that this can happen is if a majority of Directors are nominated by and selected by shareholders.  It may have been the case that social mores in the 1950s constrained CEO-nominated Boards from paying their friend $50 million per year, but those mores are apparently gone and the present structure in which management regulates itself serves only to facilitate large-scale looting by management.

For one the incentive system for corporate leadership is currently broken. As Phil states, companies (aka the market) have made it hard for shareholders to effect the decision making at the top of major corporations without expensive proxy fights and thus the main [counterproductive] recourse they have is selling their shares. And even then the cronyism between boards and executive management is such that the folks at the top still figure out how to get paid big bucks even if the stock has been taking a beating due to shareholder disaffection.

Further problems are caused by contagion, where people see one group getting rewards for particular behavior and then they want to join in the fun. Below is an excerpt of a Harvard Business School posting summarizing an interview with Warren Buffett entitled Wisdom of Warren Buffett: On Innovators, Imitators, and Idiots 

At one point, his interviewer asked the question that is on all our minds: "Should wise people have known better?" Of course, they should have, Buffett replied, but there's a "natural progression" to how good new ideas go wrong. He called this progression the "three Is." First come the innovators, who see opportunities that others don't. Then come the imitators, who copy what the innovators have done. And then come the idiots, whose avarice undoes the very innovations they are trying to use to get rich.

The problem, in other words, isn't with innovation--it's with the idiocy that follows. So how do we as individuals (not to mention as companies and societies) continue to embrace the value-creating upside of creativity while guarding against the value-destroying downsides of imitation? The answer, it seems to me, is about values--about always being able to distinguish between that which is smart and that which is expedient. And that takes discipline. Can you distinguish between a genuine innovation and a mindless imitation? Are you prepared to walk away from ideas that promise to make money, even if they make no sense?

It's not easy--which is why so many of us fall prey to so many bad ideas. "People don't get smarter about things that get as basic as greed," Warren Buffett told his interviewer. "You can't stand to see your neighbor getting rich. You know you're smarter than he is, but he's doing all these [crazy] things, and he's getting rich...so pretty soon you start doing it."

As Warren Buffett points out, our financial markets and corporate governance structures do not have safeguards that prevent greed from taking over and destroying the system. The underlying assumption in a capitalist system is that greed is good if it is properly harnessed. The problem we have today is that the people have moved faster than the rules and regulations to keep greed in check can keep up and in some cases successfully argued against these rules only for those decisions to come back and bite us on the butt.

---

So what does this have to do with designing social applications and other software systems? Any system that requires human interaction has to ensure that it takes into account the variations in human behavior and not just focus on the ideal user. This doesn't just mean malicious users and spammers who will have negative intentions towards the system. It also includes regular users who will unintentionally misuse or outwit the system in ways that the designers may not have expected.

A great example of this is Greg Linden's post on the Netflix Prize at KDD 2008 where he writes

Gavin Potter, the famous guy in a garage, had a short paper in the workshop, "Putting the collaborator back into collaborative filtering" (PDF). This paper has a fascinating discussion of how not assuming rationality and consistency when people rate movies and instead looking for patterns in people's biases can yield remarkable gains in accuracy. Some excerpts:

When [rating movies] ... a user is being asked to perform two separate tasks.

First, they are being asked to estimate their preferences for a particular item. Second, they are being asked to translate that preference into a score.

There is a significant issue ... that the scoring system, therefore, only produces an indirect estimate of the true preference of the user .... Different users are translating their preferences into scores using different scoring functions.

[For example, people] use the rating system in different ways -- some reserving the highest score only for films that they regard as truly exceptional, others using the score for films they simply enjoy .... Some users [have] only small differences in preferences of the films they have rated, and others [have] large differences .... Incorporation of a scoring function calibrated for an individual user can lead to an improvement in results.

[Another] powerful [model] we found was to include the impact of the date of the rating. It seems intuitively plausible that a user would allocate different scores depending on the mood they were in on the date of the rating.

Gavin has done quite well in the Netflix Prize; at the time of writing, he was in eighth place with an impressive score of .8684.
Galvin's paper is a light and easy read. Definitely worthwhile. Galvin's work forces us to challenge our common assumption that people are objective when providing ratings, instead suggesting that it is quite important to detect biases and moods when people rate on a 1..5 scale.

There were two key insights in Gavin Potter's paper related to how people interact with a ranking system on a 1 to 5 scale. The first is that some people will have coarser grained scoring methodology than others (e.g. John only rank movies as 1 for waste of time, 3 for satisfactory and 5 for would watch again while Jane's movie rating system ranges from 2.5 stars to 5 stars). The second insight is that you can detect and correct for when a user is having a crappy day versus a good day by seeing if they rated a lot of movies on a particular day and whether the average rating is at an extreme (e.g. Jane rates ten movies on Saturday and gives them an average score under 3 stars).

The fact that users will treat your 1 to 5 rating scale as a 2.5 to 5 rating scale or may rate a ton of movies poorly because they had a bad day at the office is a consideration that a recommendation system designer should keep in mind if they don't want to give consistently poor results to users in certain cases.  This is human nature in effect.

Another great example of how human nature foils our expectations of how users should behave is the following excerpt from the Engineering Windows 7 blog post about User Account Control

One extra click to do normal things like open the device manager, install software, or turn off your firewall is sometimes confusing and frustrating for our users. Here is a representative sample of the feedback we’ve received from the Windows Feedback Panel:

• “I do not like to be continuously asked if I want to do what I just told the computer to do.”
• “I feel like I am asked by Vista to approve every little thing that I do on my PC and I find it very aggravating.”
• “The constant asking for input to make any changes is annoying. But it is good that it makes kids ask me for password for stuff they are trying to change.”
• “Please work on simplifying the User Account control.....highly perplexing and bothersome at times”

We understand adding an extra click can be annoying, especially for users who are highly knowledgeable about what is happening with their system (or for people just trying to get work done). However, for most users, the potential benefit is that UAC forces malware or poorly written software to show itself and get your approval before it can potentially harm the system.

Does this make the system more secure? If every user of Windows were an expert that understands the cause/effect of all operations, the UAC prompt would make perfect sense and nothing malicious would slip through. The reality is that some people don’t read the prompts, and thus gain no benefit from them (and are just annoyed). In Vista, some power users have chosen to disable UAC – a setting that is admittedly hard to find. We don’t recommend you do this, but we understand you find value in the ability to turn UAC off. For the rest of you who try to figure out what is going on by reading the UAC prompt , there is the potential for a definite security benefit if you take the time to analyze each prompt and decide if it’s something you want to happen. However, we haven’t made things easy on you - the dialogs in Vista aren’t easy to decipher and are often not memorable. In one lab study we conducted, only 13% of participants could provide specific details about why they were seeing a UAC dialog in Vista.  Some didn’t remember they had seen a dialog at all when asked about it.

How do you design a dialog prompt to warn users about the potential risk of an action they are about to take if they are so intent on clicking OK and getting the job done that they forget that there was even a warning dialog afterwards?

There are a lot more examples out there but the fundamental message is the same; if you are designing a system that is going to be used by humans then you should account for the various ways people will try to outwit the system simply because they can't help themselves.

Now Playing: Kanye West - Love Lockdown

 

Some of my readers who missed the dotcom boom and bust from the early 2000s may not be familiar with FuckedCompany, a Web site that was dedicated to gloating about layoffs and other misfortunes at Web companies as the tech bubble popped.  Although fairly popular at the turn of the century the Web site was nothing more than postings about which companies had recently had layoffs, rumors of companies about to have layoffs and snarky comments about stock prices. You can read some of the old postings yourself in the WayBack Machine for FuckedCompany. I guess schadenfreude is a national pastime.

The current financial crises which has led to the worst week in the history of the Dow Jones and S&P 500 indexes as well as worldwide turmoil in financial markets to the point where countries like Austria, Russia, Iceland, Romania and Ukraine had to suspend trading on their stock markets. This has clearly pointed to the need for another schadenfreude filled website which gloats about the misfortunes of others. Thankfully TechCrunch has stepped up to the plate. Here are some of their opening morsels as they begin their transformation from tech bubble hypesters into its gloating eulogizers

• Getting The UnParty Started: Seesmic Lays Off 1/3 Of Staff – Mike Arrington
• Google Employees Watch In Horror As 60 Percent Of Their Stock Options Drown – Erick Schonfeld
• Yahoo Closes At $13.76. What A Train Wreck – Mike Arrington

For some reason, I was expecting more leadership from Arrington and his posse. Anyway, instead of reading and encouraging this sort of garbage from TechCrunch it would be great if more people keep posts like Dave McClure's Fear is the Mind Killer of the Silicon Valley Entrepreneur (we must be Muad'Dib, not Clark Kent) in mind instead. The last thing we need is popular blogs AND the mass media spreading despair and schadenfreude at a time like this.

Now Playing: T.I. - Dead And Gone (Featuring Justin Timberlake)

 

Yesterday there was a news article on MSNBC that claimed 1 in 6 now owe more on their mortgage then their property is worth. The article states

The relentless slide in home prices has left nearly one in six U.S. homeowners owing more on a mortgage than the home is worth, raising the possibility of a rise in defaults — the very misfortune that touched off the credit crisis last year. The result of homeowners being "underwater" is more pressure on an economy that is already in a downturn. No longer having equity in their homes makes people feel less rich and thus less inclined to shop at the mall.

And having more homeowners underwater is likely to mean more eventual foreclosures, because it is hard for borrowers in financial trouble to refinance or sell their homes and pay off their mortgage if their debt exceeds the home's value. A foreclosed home, in turn, tends to lower the value of other homes in its neighborhood.
…
Among people who bought within the past five years, it's worse: 29 percent are underwater on their mortgages, according to an estimate by real-estate Web site Zillow.com.

According to Zillow, our home is one of those that is currently "underwater" because it's estimated value has dropped $25,000 since we bought it according to their algorithms. Given that we bought our home last year I don't doubt that we are underwater and in fact I expect our home value to only go down further. This is because the disparity between median house values and median incomes is still fairly stark even with the current depreciation in the neighborhood.

Here's what I mean; according to Zillow the median household income in the area is about $46,000 while the median home price is around $345,000. This disparity is shocking when you apply some of the basic rules from the "old days" before we had the flood of easy credit which led up to the current crises. For argument's sake, let's assume that everyone that moves to the area actually pays the traditional 20% down payment even though the personal savings rate of the average American is in the negative. This means they need a mortgage of $276,000. Plugging that number into a simple mortgage calculator assuming a 30 year loan at 5.75% interest gives a monthly mortgage payment of over $1600.

Using the traditional debt-to-income ratio of 0.28 a person with $46,000 in gross income shouldn't get a mortgage that over $1100 because they are hard pressed to afford it. Using another metric, the authors of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Buying and Selling a Home argue that you shouldn't get a mortgage over 2 1/2 times your household income which still has us with around $150,000 being the appropriate size of a mortgage that someone that lives in my neighborhood can afford.

However you slice it even assuming a 20% down payment, the people in my neighborhood live in homes that they couldn't afford to get a legitimate mortgage on at today's prices. That is fundamentally broken. 

Things get particularly clear when you look at the chart below and realize that house prices rose over $100,000 dollars in the past five years. 

A lot of people have started talking about "stabilizing home prices" and "bailing out home owners" because of underwater mortgages. In truth, easy credit caused houses to become overpriced especially when you consider that house prices were rising at a much faster rate than wages. Despite the current drop, house prices are still unrealistic and will need to come down further. Trying to prevent that from happening is like trying to have our cake and eat it too. You just can't.

I expect that more banks will end up having to create programs like Bank of America's Nationwide Homeownership Retention for CountryWide Customers which will modify mortgage principals and interest rates downwards in a move that will end up costing them over $8.6 billion but will make it more likely that their customers can afford to pay their mortgages. I'm surprised that it took a class action lawsuit to get this to happen instead of common sense. Then again it is 8.6 BILLION dollars. 

Now Playing: 50 Cent - When It Rains It Pours

 

I logged in to my 401K account today and was greeted by the following message

Personal Rate of Return from 01/01/2008 to 10/06/2008 is -23.5%

Of course, it could have been worse,  I could have had it all in the stock market.

I've been chatting with co-workers who've only posted single digit percentage loses (i.e. their 401K is down less than 10% this year) and been surprised that every single person in that position had hedged their bets by having a large chunk of their 401K as cash. I remember Joshua advising me to do this a couple of months ago when things started looking bad but I took it as paranoia, now I wish I had listened.

Of course, I'd still have the problem of having to trust the institution that was holding the cash like the guy from the MSNBC article excerpted below

Mani Behimehr, a home designer living in Tustin, Calif., isn't feeling reassured after what happened to WaMu and Wachovia. After he heard the news that WaMu had been seized and sold to JP Morgan, he rushed out to withdraw about $150,000 in savings and opened a new account at Wachovia only to learn about its sale to Citigroup two days later.

"I thought this is the strongest economy in the world; nothing like that happens in this country," said Behimehr, 46, who is originally from Iran.

At least I don't have to worry about living off of my 401(k) anytime soon.

Update: A commenter brought up that I should explain what a 401(k) account is for non-US readers. From wikipedia; in the United States of America, a 401(k) plan allows a worker to save for retirement while deferring income taxes on the saved money and earnings until withdrawal. The employee elects to have a portion of his or her wage paid directly, or "deferred," into his or her 401(k) account. In participant-directed plans (the most common option), the employee can select from a number of investment options, usually an assortment of mutual funds that emphasize stocks, bonds, money market investments, or some mix of the above.

Now Playing: Abba - Money, Money, Money

 

I'm sure y'all have seen this link floating around the Internet's already but I wanted to have this here for posterity. Below is an excerpt from a 1999 article in the New York Times by Steven Holmes titled Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending 

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

…

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Although the article is particularly prescient there is one thing it didn't predict, which is how much this risk of failure would be compounded while remaining hidden due to the rise of Mortgage Backed Securities. Still, it is definitely interesting reading to see that someone called the current clusterfuck as far back as 1999.

Way to go Clinton administration, as always the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

Now Playing: Young Jeezy - The Recession (Intro)

 

cognitive dissonance
n. Psychology.

A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

Now Playing: The Beach Boys - Barbara Ann

 

Sometime last week I learned that podcasting startup PodTech was acquired for less than $500,000. This is a rather ignominious exit for a startup that initially entered the public consciousness with its high profile hire of Robert Scoble and the intent to build a technology news media empire using RSS and podcasts instead of radio waves and news print.

When I first heard about PodTech via Robert Scoble's blog, it seemed like a bad business to jump into given the lessons of The Long Tail. The Web creates an overabundance of content and products, which is good for aggregators but bad for creators. Even in 2006 when PodTech was founded you could see this in the success of "Web 2.0" companies that acted as content aggregators like Google, YouTube, Wikipedia and Flickr while content creators like music labels and news papers were beginning to scramble for relevance and revenue. 

Kevin Kelly has a great post about this called Wagging the Long Tail of Love where he writes

So as one crosses the sections -- going from the short head to the long tail -- one should be consistent and view it from the aggregator's point of view or the creator's point of view. I think it is a mistake to conflate the two view points.

I've been wrestling with this for a while and I think the only advantage to the creator that I can see in the long tail is that aggregators can invent or produce a long tail domain that was not present before.  Like Seth's Squidoo does. Before Squidoo or Amazon or Netflix came along there was no market at all for many of the creations they now distribute. The proposition that long tail aggregators can offer to creators is profound, but simple: you have a choice between a itsy bitsy niche audience (with nano profits) or no audience at all. Before the LT was expanded your masterpiece on breeding salt water aquarium fishes from the Red Sea would have no paying fans. Now you have maybe 100.

One hundred readers/watchers/listeners is not economical. There is no business equation that can sustain profits for continual creation from so few buyers. (It can of course support the business of aggregation above the level of creation.) But the long tail niche creation operates perfectly well in the realm of passion, enthusiasm, obsession, curiosity, peerage, love, and the gift economy.  In the exchange of psychic energy, encouragement, meaning of life, and reasons to live, the long now is a boon.

That is not true about profits. Economically, the more the long tail expands, the more stuff there is to compete with our limited attention as an audience, the more difficult it is for a creator to sell profitably. Or, the longer the tail, the worse for sales.

The Web has significantly reduced the costs of producing and distributing content. Anyone with a computer can publish to a potential audience of hundreds of millions of people for as little as the cost of their Internet connection. This is great for content consumers but it has significantly increased the amount of competition among content creators while also reducing their chances of generating profits from their work since the Web/Internet has provided lots of options for getting quality content for free (both legally and illegally). 

All of this is a long way of saying that in the era of "Web 2.0" it was quite unwise for a VC funded startup to jump into the pool of content creators and thus become a victim of The Long Tail instead of becoming a content aggregator and thus benefiting from the Long Tail instead. Of course, even that may not have saved them since the market for podcast aggregators pretty much dried up once Apple entered the fray.

Now Playing: Lil Wayne - I'm Me

 

A year ago Loren Feldman produced a controversial video called "TechNigga" which seems to still be causing him problems today. Matthew Ingram captures the latest fallout from that controversy in his post Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media where he writes

Several civil-rights groups and media watchdogs are protesting a decision by telecom giant Verizon to add 1938media’s video clips to its mobile Vcast service, saying Loren’s "TechNigga" clip is demeaning to black people. Project Islamic Hope, for example, has issued a statement demanding that Verizon drop its distribution arrangement with 1938media, which was just announced about a week ago, and other groups including the National Action Network and LA Humanity Foundation are also apparently calling for people to email Verizon and protest.

The video that has Islamic Hope and other groups so upset is one called "TechNigga," which Loren put together last August. After wondering aloud why there are no black tech bloggers, Loren reappears with a skullcap and some gawdy jewelry, and claims to be the host of a show called TechNigga. He then swigs from a bottle of booze, does a lot of tongue-kissing and face-licking with his girlfriend Michelle Oshen, and then introduces a new Web app called "Ho-Trackr," which is a mashup with Google Maps that allows prospective johns to locate prostitutes. In a statement, Islamic Hope says that the video "sends a horrible message that Verizon seeks to partner with racists."

I remember encountering the video last year and thinking it was incredibly unfunny. It wasn’t a clever juxtaposition of hip hop culture and tech geekery. It wasn’t satire since that involves lampooning someone or something you disapprove off in a humorous way (see The Colbert Report).  Of course, I thought the responses to the video were even dumber; like Robert Scoble responding to the video with the comment “Dare Obasanjo is black”.

Since posting the video Loren Feldman has lost a bunch of video distribution deals with the current Verizon deal being the latest. I’ve been amused to read all of the comments on TechCrunch about how this violates Loren’s freedom of speech.

People often confuse the fact that it is not a crime to speak your mind in America with the belief that you should be able to speak your mind without consequence. The two things are not the same. If I call you an idiot, I may not go to jail but I shouldn’t expect you to be nice to me afterwards. The things you say can come back and bite you on butt is something everyone should have learned growing up. So it is always surprising for me to see people petulantly complain that “this violates my freedom of speech” when they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

BONUS VIDEO: A juxtaposition of hip hop culture and Web geekery by a black tech blogger.

Now Playing: NWA – N*ggaz 4 Life

 

Om Malik has a blog post entitled Zuckerberg’s Mea Culpa, Not Enough where he writes

Frankly, I am myself getting sick and tired of repeating myself about the all-important “information transmission from partner sites” aspect of Beacon. That question remains unanswered in Zuckerberg’s blog post, which upon second read is rather scant on actual privacy information. Here is what he writes:

If you select that you don’t want to share some Beacon actions or if you turn off Beacon, then Facebook won’t store those actions even when partners send them to Facebook.”

So essentially he’s saying the information transmitted won’t be stored but will perhaps be interpreted. Will this happen in real time? If that is the case, then the advertising “optimization” that results from “transmissions” is going to continue. Right!

If they were making massive changes, one would have seen options like “Don’t allow any web sites to send stories to Facebook” or “Don’t track my actions outside of Facebook” in this image below.

This is the part of Facebook's Beacon service that I consider to be unfixable which probably needs to be stated more explicitly given comments like those by Sam Ruby in his post Little Details.

The fundamental design of Facebook Beacon is that a Web site publishes information about my transactions to Facebook without my permission and then Facebook tells me what happened after the fact. This is fundamentally Broken As Designed (B.A.D.).

I read Mark Zuckerburg's Thoughts on Beacon last week and looked at the new privacy controls. Nowhere is the fundamental problem addressed.

Nothing Mark Zuckerburg wrote changes the fact that when I rent a movie from Blockbuster Online, information about the transaction is published to Facebook regardless of whether I am a Facebook user or not.  The only change Zuckerburg has announced is that I can opt out of getting nagged to have the information spammed to my friends via the News Feed. One could argue that this isn't Facebook's problem. After all, when SixApart implemented support for Facebook Beacon they didn't decide that they'd blindly publish all activities from users of TypePad to Facebook. Instead they have an opt-in model on their site which preserves their users' privacy by not revealing information to Mark Zuckerburg's company without their permission. On the flip side the Blockbuster decided to publish information about all of their customers' video rental transaction history  to Mark Zuckerburg and company, without their explicit permission, even though this violates federal law. As a Blockbuster customer, the only way around this is to stop using Blockbuster's service.

So who is to blame here? Facebook for designing a system that assumes that 3rd parties publishing private user data to them without the user's consent is OK as the default or Facebook affiliates who care so little of their customer's privacy that they give it away to Facebook in return for "viral" references to their services (aka spam)?

Now playing: Akon - Ghetto (Green Lantern remix) (feat. Notorious B.I.G. & 2Pac)

 

People Who Need to Get the Fuck out of the White House
Donald Rumsfeld
Karl Rove
Alberto Gonzales
Dick Cheney
G.W. Bush

Now playing: Al Green - Tired Of Being Alone

 

I try to avoid posting about TechMeme pile ups but this one was just too irritating to let pass. Mark Cuban has a blog post entitled The Internet is Dead and Boring which contains the following excerpts 

Some of you may not want to admit it, but that's exactly what the net has become. A utility. It has stopped evolving. Your Internet experience today is not much different than it was 5 years ago.
...
Some people have tried to make the point that Web 2.0 is proof that the Internet is evolving. Actually it is the exact opposite. Web 2.0 is proof that the Internet has stopped evolving and stabilized as a platform. Its very very difficult to develop applications on a platform that is ever changing. Things stop working in that environment. Internet 1.0 wasn't the most stable development environment. To days Internet is stable specifically because its now boring.(easy to avoid browser and script differences excluded)

Applications like Myspace, Facebook, Youtube, etc were able to explode in popularity because they worked. No one had to worry about their ISP making a change and things not working. The days of walled gardens like AOL, Prodigy and others were gone.
...
The days of the Internet creating explosively exciting ideas are dead. They are dead until bandwidth throughput to the home reaches far higher numbers than the vast majority of broadband users get today.
...
So, let me repeat, The days of the Internet creating explosively exciting ideas are dead for the foreseeable future..

I agree with Mark Cuban that the fundamental technologies that underly the Internet (DNS and TCP/IP) and the Web in particular (HTTP and HTML) are quite stable and are unlikely to undergo any radical changes anytime soon. If you are a fan of Internet infrastructure then the current world is quite boring because we aren't likely to ever see an Internet based on IPv8 or a Web based on HTTP 3.0. In addition, it is clear that the relative stability in the Web development environment and increase in the number of people with high bandwidth connections is what has led a number of the trends that are collectively grouped as "Web 2.0".

However Mark Cuban goes off the rails when he confuses his vision of the future of media as the only explosive exciting ideas that can be enabled by a global network like the Internet. Mark Cuban is an investor in HDNet which is a company that creates and distributes professionally produced content in high definition video formats. Mark would love nothing more than to distribute his content over the Internet especially since lack of interest in HDNet in the cable TV universe (I couldn't find any cable company on the Where to Watch HDNet page that actually carried the channel).

Unfortunately, Mark Cuban's vision of distributing high definition video over the Internet has two problems. The first is the fact that distributing high quality video of the Web is too expensive and the bandwidth of the average Web user is insufficient to make the user experience pleasant. The second is that people on the Web have already spoken and content trumps media quality any day of the week. Remember when pundits used to claim that consumers wouldn't choose lossy, compressed audio on the Web over lossless music formats? I guess no one brings that up anymore given the success of the MP3 format and the iPod. Mark Cuban is repeating the same mistake with his HDNet misadventure.  User generated, poor quality video on sites like YouTube and larger library of content on sites like Netflix: Instant Viewing is going to trump the limited line up on services like HDNet regardless of how much higher definition the video quality gets.

Mark Cuban has bet on a losing horse and he doesn't realize it yet. The world has changed on him and he's still trying to work within an expired paradigm. It's like a newspaper magnate blaming printer manufacturers for not making it easy to print a newspaper off of the Web instead of coming to grips with the fact that the Internet with its blogging/social media/user generated content/craig's list and all that other malarky has turned his industry on its head.

This is what it looks like when a billionairre has made a bad investment and doesn't know how to recognize the smell of failure blasting his nostrils with its pungent aroma.

 

THEN: The PayPerPost Virus Spreads

Two new services that are similar to the controversial PayPerPost have announced their launch in the last few days: ReviewMe and CreamAid. PayPerPost, a marketplace for advertisers to pay bloggers to write about products (with our without disclosure), recently gained additional attention when they announced a $3 million round of venture financing.

The PayPerPost model brings up memories of payola in the music industry, something the FCC and state attorney generals are still trying to eliminate or control. Given the distributed and unlicensed nature of the blogosphere, controlling payoffs to bloggers will be exponentially more difficult.

Our position on these pay-to-shill services is clear: they are a natural result of the growth in size and influence of the blogosphere, but they undermine the credibility of the entire ecosystem and mislead readers.

NOW: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

The title, which is a quote from the movie casablanca, is what came to mind tonight when I read the complete train wreck occuring on TechMeme over advertisements that contain a written message from the publisher. The whole thing was started by Valleywag of course.

The ads in question are a staple of FM Publishing - a standard ad unit contains a quote by the publisher saying something about something. It isn’t a direct endorsement. Rather, it’s usually an answer to some lame slogan created by the adveriser. It makes the ad more personal and has a higher click through rate, or so we’ve been told. In the case of the Microsoft ad, we were quoted how we had become “people ready,” whatever that means. See our answer and some of the others here (I think it will be hard to find this text controversial, or anything other then extremely boring). We do these all the time…generally FM suggests some language and we approve or tweak it to make it less lame. The ads go up, we get paid. This has been going on for months and months - at least since the summer of 2006. It’s nothing new. It’s text in an ad box. I think people are pretty aware of what that means…which is nothing.

Any questions?

 

It seems that I must have missed some key conference or memo sometime this year because all of a sudden I see a lot of blogs dropping the term social media and I have no idea what it means. I tried reading the wikipedia entry for social media but ended up more confused than ever. The first paragpragh seems OK and it reads

Social media describes the online tools, platforms and practices that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other. Social media can take many different forms, including text, images, audio, and video. Popular social mediums include blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, and vlogs.

This seems like an explanatory definition until you consider that this pretty much describes the majority of the Web today. We have moved from the read-only Web of the 1990s to the read-write Web of today where personal publishing is king from self indulgent blogs and ugly MySpace pages to home made rap videos and amateur photo journalism. Personal publishing and the editable Web is here to stay. Thus this term seems pretty redundant especially since the odious "Web 2.0" still seems to have legs. Did the pundits get tired of "Web 2.0" and decide they needed to create a new buzzword to yank our chains with? Seriously...WTF?

PS: Is it just me or does most of the Wikipedia entry seem like a cleverly disguised ad for a PR firm with references to "Social Media Press Releases" and "Social Media Campaigns". Double WTF?

PPS: The tipping point for me with regards to this silly term was reading the TechCrunch article about Microsoft hiring Michael Gartenberg and trying to parse "Hiring social media power users to evangelize for your company’s product" into a statement that made sense and failing. Woefully.

 

During my morning workout I was watching stories on Iran on both Good Morning America and CNN. GMA had an exclusive interview with the President of Iran and interviewed some of the citizens in a move which made it seem like "the Iranian people" love America and it is their leaders that hate the United States. My favorite quote was one of the burkha clad ladies being quoted as saying "I'd like to go Las Vegas" [sic]. CNN on the other hand was all about the recent "news" that Iraqi insurgents are being armed and trained by elite Iranian troops. I'm now going through a serious case of déjà vu, it's like 2003 all over again.

Dave Winer does a good job of calling bullshit on this snow job in his post Iranian weapons? BFD where he writes

The NY Times ran this story on Saturday, today there's a mysterious US press briefing announcing that they had discovered that weapons imported from Iran to Iraq are killing American soldiers. So what exactly are we supposed to conclude from this? They don't say.

On the Sunday talk shows, the politicos don't say what's obvious to this voter.

1. If you don't want Americans blown up by Iranian weapons, get them out of Iraq.

2. It's a big surprise? We're calling them names, threatening them, moving our aircraft carriers into their ports, and we're supposed to be shocked that they're helping people who are fighting with us in Iraq? I would be surprised if it were otherwise, if they weren't helping them.

3. Who's providing more weapons to our enemies, Iran or the U.S.? I don't have the slightest doubt that the American taxpayer is the largest single source of support for people killing Americans in Iraq. We're pumping billions of dollars into Iraq every month, a lot of that must be in the form of weapons. Our supposed allies in Iraq are actually Sunni or Shi'ite militia. There are virtually no non-partisans in Iraq, everyone is on some side, and aside from the Americans and British, they're all trying to blow our guys up.

4. We'll leave behind a power vacuum in Iraq if we leave now? Seems doubtful to me. The place is already in chaos. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq (or thereabouts) in a country of 27 million people.

I agree with a lot of what Dave Winer has to say although I disagree that pulling out is the right course of action since the country is likely to devolve further into a state of civil war which the United States is directly responsible for. Unfortunately, it seems that while the congress is endlessly debating whether to issue the equivalent of a press release that expresses mild indignation at the president's troop surge in Iraq, he has already moved on and is planning how he'll expand his invasion and occupation of the Middle East into Iran.

The phrase to hell in a handbasket never seemed so accurate.

 

From the Reuters article R&B sales slide alarms music biz we learn

With the exception of new age, the smallest genre tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, R&B and rap suffered the biggest declines in 2006 of all styles of music. R&B, with album scans of 117 million units, was down 18.4% from 2005, while the rap subgenre's 59.5 million scans were down 20.7%. Total U.S. album sales fell 4.9% to 588.2 million units. Since 2000, total album sales have slid 25%, but R&B is down 41.4% and rap down 44.4%. In 2000, R&B accounted for 25.4% of total album sales, and rap 13.6%. In 2006, their respective shares fell to nearly 20% and 10%.
...
Merchants point to large second-week declines in new albums. For example, Jay-Z's 2006 "Kingdom Come" album debuted with 680,000 units in its first week and then dropped nearly 80%, to almost 140,000 units.
...
"Downloading and Internet file sharing is a problem and the labels are really late in fixing it," Czar Entertainment CEO and manager of the Game Jimmy Rosemond says. "With an artist like Game, his album leaked before it came out, and I had 4 million people downloading it."
...
In 2006, the best-selling rap album was T.I.'s "King," which sold 1.6 million copies, while the best-selling R&B album was Beyonce's "B'Day," which moved 1.8 million units. But those are exceptions.
...
A senior executive at one major label says ringtone revenue now exceeds track download revenue. And since Nielsen RingScan started tracking master ringtones in September, rap and R&B have comprised 87% of scans generated by the top 10 sellers.

Interscope's Marshall points out that Jibbs, for example, "has sold an incredible 1.4 million ringtones" -- a figure that might well offset lost album revenue. The rapper has moved 196,000 units of his "Jibbs Feat. Jibbs" album since its October 24 release. But figuring the ringtones he's sold at $2 apiece translates into $2.8 million in revenue, the equivalent of another 233,000 albums at a wholesale cost of $12 per unit.

And, Marshall adds, Chamillionaire has moved more than 3 million ringtones on top of scanning nearly 900,000 units of his "Sound of Revenge" album.

Some look at the above data and see it is an argument that the long tail spells the end of the hit. Others look at it and see it as more evidence that piracy is destroying the music industry. Or it may just be a sign that hip hop is finally played out. Me, I look at the ringtone industry and wonder whether it doesn't stand out as an example of where walled gardens and closed platforms have worked out quite well for the platform vendors and their partners yet [almost] detrimentally for consumers.

 

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has a blog post entitled Complicated Decisions where he writes

There is also genuine concern for the fate of the Iraqis if we leave.  Yet, according to this opinion poll, 7 out of 10 Iraqis want us to pull out.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

And so the decision about leaving Iraq can be boiled down to this:

1. American troops are dying.
2. It’s impossible to know if national security is best served by staying or leaving.
3. 7 out of 10 Iraqis want us to leave.
4. We have accomplished all that we KNOW we can accomplish. Anything else is guessing.
5. Iraq diverts resources from our higher priorities.

It’s impossible to know the RIGHT answer about Iraq. But it has become simple to know the RATIONAL path. Unlike a financial investment, where you might be willing to invest in a high risk/reward situation, you can’t diversify war. If the payoff isn’t obvious and predictable, the rational thing to do is pull out and minimize troop casualties. Any other path is just guessing.

Your disagreement is invited.

Back in 2003, I wrote a couple of blog posts where I disagreed with the plan to invade Irag because it set a bad precedent. The current state of affairs with almost 3,000 dead and over 20,000 injured U.S. troops along with the claim of over half a million Iraqis dead is worse than anything I imagined. Now that the invasion has happened I find myself unable to agree with either of the major sides in the U.S. debate on what the next steps should be.

On the one hand, there are the Cut and Run arguments such as what Scott Adams has made above which I mostly agree with. Except that it is quite likely that the situation in Iraq will likely devolve into a civil war and wholesale ethnic genocide if U.S. troops leave. Given that the U.S. invasion is the catalyst for the current state if affairs, I strongly believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to fix the country it has turned into a frightful warzone. On the other hand, the Stay the Course arguments have failed to sway me because it is quite clear that the situation in Iraq is more complex than the sound bites on Fox News would have one believe. Sometimes it seems there are five or six different sides battling it out; U.S. troops, Al Qaeda operatives, Sunni militia, Shi'ite militia, Iraqi government troops and foreign troops from neighboring countries. It is unclear to me exactly how the Stay the Course folks quantify victory in such a situation. Today I walked past a TV and saw some pundit on MSNBC asking which side the U.S. should fight alongside in the Iraqi civil war as if picking what outfit to wear to the prom. 

I've begun to lean more towards Scott Adams's position although I have difficulty with the U.S. initiating this bloodshed then just walking away from the results of its actions. What are your opinions on the next course of action the U.S. should take?

 

I just saw the article College frat boys in "Borat" movie sue filmmakers which states

Two of the college fraternity brothers shown guzzling alcohol and making racist remarks in the "Borat" movie have sued the studio and producers for fraud, saying filmmakers duped them into appearing in the movie by getting them drunk.
...
The scene at issue in the lawsuit depicts Borat conducting a drunken interview with three college frat boys in a motor home. As the four grow increasingly inebriated, they make racist remarks about slavery and how minorities in the United States "have all the power."
...
"Believing the film would not be viewed in the United States and at the encouragement of (the filmmakers), plaintiffs engaged in behavior they otherwise would not have engaged in," the suit says.

"They took advantage of those kids for their own financial gain," plaintiffs' lawyer, Olivier Tailleiu, told Reuters.

Fallout from the movie, Tailleiu said, cost one of the students a job at a major corporation and another "a very prestigious internship." The third student involved in the scene did not take part in the suit, he said.

I guess the saying should be updated from "Character is what you do when no one is looking" to "Character is what you do when you think the only peoplelooking are foreigners who live thousands of miles away". As I watched that scene in the movie, I wondered how many people I've known sound like that once you loosen them up with a few beers and no minorities or women are around. My guess is quite a few.

PS:The Borat movie is hilarious and biting satire at the same time, if you haven't seen it you need to watch that as soon as you get the chance.

 

I haven't really been blogging much about Windows Live over the past few weeks mainly because none of what I've wanted to write seems like it was worth an entire post. Below is a brain dump of most of the items I've wanted to blog about and haven't for whatever reasons.

• One of the ideas I'm dabbling with now is how reputation and trust play into social networks particularly in the context of Windows Live. A couple of the things I've been considering are how to define reputation in the varous contexts we have in Windows Live and then how to represent it to users. So far, I've been looking across the various Windows Live services and seeing what they have in place today. When I first looked at a user profile in Windows Live QnA, I thought it was kind of weird that people have 3 reputation values attached to them; their Reputation which is on a five star rating system, their QnA Score and their Level. I read the explanation of scoring and the reputation system which makes sense but seemed to me to be somewhat complicated. I brought this up with Betsy Aoki who works on the team and she pointed out that this isn't much different from the XBox gamer card and people seem to understand that. I dunno, that still feels fairly complicated to me. Also, I'm not sure if the paradigm that seems to work for a video game reputation system translates well to other contexts (e.g. buyer/seller reputation in Windows Live Expo). What do you think? 

• I heard we've released a beta of Windows Live Barcode which sounds like a pretty cool service. Unfortunately I couldn't get it to work in either IE 7 (beta 3) or Firefox 1.5. I suspect that this wasn't ready to beta but was discovered by some clever sleuths. Unfortunate.
  

• I think I finally understand why the business folks would rather call the service Windows Live Local instead of Windows Live Maps. It's an attempt to indicate what the preferred user behavior should be. A maps website isn't very lucrative from a business perspective because when someone is looking for a map it means they know where they are going and ads won't be interesting to them. On the other hand, when someone goes to a local search website they are likely looking for a business near them and ads are very relevant at that point. Now I get it. However I still think we should rename the service to Windows Live Maps. :)

• Speaking of Windows Live Maps Local, the team is once again taking feature requests for the next version of the product. My #1 feature would be the ability to overlay movie theater locations and movie times on a map. My #2 feature would be simplifying the UI and making it easier to (a) get a permalink to a map and (b) navigate to my collections. Let the team know what you think. A lot of the improvements in this version of the product came out of direct user feedback.
  

• Mary Jo Foley has an article entitled Microsoft earns a mixed report card for its year-old Live initiative which gives some perspective from Microsoft outsiders on the entire "Live" initiative. As usual the #1 complaint seems to be that our consumer branding story is still very confusing with the existence of both MSN services and Windows Live services living side-by-side. Maybe we'll do better with regards to this on our second birthday.

• The Windows Live Expo team have posted some information updates to the Expo API. It looks like the API now allows you to do searches using any combination of City, State or Zip Code which fixes my main problem with the API. Thanks Samir. :)

• The Windows Live Messenger 8.1 beta is now available. Learn more about it in Nicole's post Messenger 8.1 Beta says: Hello World. Nothing major in this release, just a couple of nice touches such as improvements to the Contact Card and being able to use the same display picture across multiple machines instead of the picture being tied to your PC. The Messenger team continues to be my second favorite Windows Live team*. Keep on rocking.

*My favorite Windows Live team is the Windows Live Local crew.
 

From the ACLU press release President Bush Signs Un-American Military Commissions Act, ACLU Says New Law Undermines Due Process and the Rule of Law we learn

WASHINGTON - As President Bush signed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage and called the new law one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history.
...
"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions.  Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."

It's a good thing the American media is keeping on top of all the important issues like which gay Republicans were having inappropriate relations with heir male interns instead of mundane bits of legal mumbo jumbo like the death of Habeus Corpus.

 

From the USA Today article Bill would keep servers out of China we learn

Now, Congress is stepping in with proposed legislation that could hobble the companies as they plunge deeper into one of the world's hottest economies. This is Round 2 for Congress. Last year, it scrutinized and slowed other business deals with ties to China's government among oil companies and computer makers.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights. Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines. (Related: AOL tries to speak Chinese.)
...
Google last month launched Google.cn, a version of its No. 1 search engine that prevents Chinese residents from seeing, for example, photos of tanks confronting Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989. Also last month, Microsoft acknowledged shutting down a blog run by a Chinese journalist critical of the government.

Last fall, Yahoo acknowledged giving information to Chinese officials that led to a 10-year prison sentence for a journalist accused of divulging state secrets. Last week, Reporters Without Borders, a journalism group critical of Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese officials, accused it of working with the Chinese government in another case that led to a dissident being jailed. Yahoo said it was unaware of the case.

The companies say they are unhappy with the restrictions yet must honor local laws.
...
Google's site launch came days after it rebuffed a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding that it turn over data on how millions of users search the Internet.

In contrast, Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all cooperated with Justice.

Since this affects my day job I won't comment on it other than to say I find this entire debate very interesting. I will mention that unlike the USA Today reporter who wrote this story I'm not sure that the U.S. government's interest in the IBM/Lenovo or Unocal/CNOOC deals last year is comparable to the current efforts by members of congress.

 

Sometimes I've seen the U.S. media take the simplistic view that "democracy" is the answer to all of a country's problems. I often chuckle to myself when I notice that in many cases the term "democracy" when used by the American press is really a euphemism for an American friendly government and way of life.  This is one of the reasons why I am unsurprised by the inherent contradiction in stories like Bush Says U.S. Won't Deal With Hamas which is excerpted below

Stunned by Hamas' decisive election victory, President Bush said Thursday the United States will not deal with the militant Palestinian group as long as it seeks Israel's destruction.

"If your platform is the destruction of Israel it means you're not a partner in peace," the president said. "And we're interested in peace." He urged Hamas to reverse course.

Hamas has taken responsibility for dozens of suicide attacks on Israel over the past five years but has largely observed a cease-fire since the election of Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president last year.

Bush left open the possibility of cutting off U.S. aid to the Palestinians. He called on Abbas, a U.S. ally, to remain in office despite Fatah's defeat by Hamas in parliamentary elections. Abbas, elected separately a year ago, said he was committed to negotiations with Israel and suggested talks would be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization, a possible way around a Hamas-led government.

I guess that's one way of to finding out what the U.S. government really thinks about exporting democracy. American foreign policy has always been about supporting governments which support its policies regardless of whether they are democracies or brutal dictatorships. Heck, just a few months before the events of September 11, 2001 the United States government gave aid to the Taliban because they took a hard line position in the war on drugs.

Lots of people talk about democracy without really understanding what it means. Spreading democracy isn't about making the more places share American culture, it's about giving people the freedom to choose their way of life. The hard part for the U.S. government is that sometimes their choices will be different from the ones Americans would like them to make.

 

Thanks to the recent news of the US Department of Justice's requests for information from the major web search engines, I've seen a number of people express surprise and dismay that online services track information that they'd consider private. A term that I've seen bandied about a lot recently is Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which I'd never heard before starting work at MSN.

The Wikipedia definition for Personally Identifiable Information (PII) states

In information security and privacy, personally identifiable information or personally identifying information (PII) is any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person.

Items which might be considered PII include, but are not limited to, a person's:

• Full name (if not common)
• National identification number
• Telephone number
• Street address
• E-mail address
• IP address (in some cases)
• Vehicle registration plate number
• Driver's license number
• Face, fingerprints, or handwriting

Information that is not generally considered personally identifiable, because many people share the same trait, include:

• First or last name, if common
• Country, state, or city of residence
• Age, especially if non-specific
• Gender or race
• Name of the school they attend or workplace
• Grades, salary, or job position
• Criminal record

When a person wishes to remain anonymous, descriptions of them will often employ several of the above, such as "a 34-year-old black man who works at Target". Note that information can still be private, in the sense that a person may not wish for it to become publicly known, without being personally identifiable. Moreover, sometimes multiple pieces of information, none of which are PII, may uniquely identify a person when brought together; this is one reason that multiple pieces of evidence are usually presented at criminal trials. For example, there may be only one Inuit person named Steve in the town of Lincoln Park, Michigan.

In addition, there is the notion of sensitive PII. This is information which can be linked to a person which the person desires to keep private due to potential for abuse. Examples of "sensitive PII" are a person's medical/health conditions; racial or ethnic origin; political, religious or philosophical beliefs or affiliations; trade union membership or sex life.

Many online services such as MSN have strict rules about when PII should be collected from users, how it must be secured and under what conditions it can be shared with other entities. However many Internet users don't understand that they disclose PII when using online services. Not only is there explicit collection of PII such as when user's provide their name, address and credit card information to online stores but there is often implicit PII collected which even savvy users fail to consider. For example, most Web servers log IP addresses of incoming HTTP requests which can then be used to identify users in many cases. It's easy to forget that practically every website you visit stores your IP address somewhere on their servers as soon as you hit the site. Other examples aren't so obvious. There was a recent article on Boing Boing entitled Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists which showed how to obtain sensitive PII such as people's political beliefs from their wishlists on Amazon.com. A few years ago I read a blog post entitled Pets Considered Harmful which showed how one could obtain sensitive PII such as someone's email password by obtaining the name of the person's pet from reading their blog since "What is the name of your cat?" was a question used by GMail to allow one to change their password.  

The reason I bring this stuff up is that I've seen people like Robert Scoble's make comments about wanting "a button to click that shows everything that’s being collected from their experience". This really shows a lack of understanding about PII. Would such a button prevent users from revealing their political affiliations in their Amazon wishlists or giving would be email account hijackers the keys to their accounts by blogging about their pets? I doubt it.

The problem is that most people don't realize that they've revealed too much information about themselves until something bad happens. Unfortunately, by then it is usually too late to do anything about it. If are an Internet user,  you should be cognizant of the amount of PII you are giving away by using web applications like search engines, blogs, email, instant messaging, online stores and even social bookmarking services.

Be careful out there.

 

There's been a bunch of speculation about the recent DOJ requests for logs from the major search engines. Ken Moss of the MSN Search team tells their side of the story in his post Privacy and MSN Search. He writes

There’s been quite a frenzy of speculation over the past 24 hours regarding the request by the government for some data in relation to a child online protection lawsuit.  Obviously both privacy and child protection are both super important topics – so I’m glad this discussion is happening.

Some facts have been reported, but mostly I’ve seen a ton of speculation reported as facts.   I wanted to use this blog post to clarify some facts and to share with you what we are thinking here at MSN Search.

Let me start with this core principle statement: privacy of our customers is non-negotiable and something worth fighting to protect.

Now, on to the specifics.  

Over the summer we were subpoenaed by the DOJ regarding a lawsuit.  The subpoena requested that we produce data from our search service. We worked hard to scope the request to something that would be consistent with this principle.  The applicable parties to the case received this data, and  the parties agreed that the information specific to this case would remain confidential.  Specifically, we produced a random sample of pages from our index and some aggregated query logs that listed queries and how often they occurred .  Absolutely no personal data was involved.

With this data you:

        CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred.
        CANNOT look up an IP and see what they queried
        CANNOT look for users who queried for both “TERM A” and “TERM B”.

At MSN Search, we have strict guidelines in place to protect the privacy of our customers data, and I think you’ll agree that privacy was fully protected.  We tried to strike the right balance in a very sensitive matter.

I've been surprised at how much rampant speculation from blogs has been reported in mainstream media articles as facts without people getting information directly from the source.

 

I found out about http://www.google.com/ig/dell via John Batelle's blog last night. It looks like Google now has a personalized home page for users of Dell computers.

During the Web 2.0 conference, Sergey Brin commented that "Google innovates with technology not with business". I don't know about that. The AdSense/AdWords market is business genius and the fact that they snagged the AOL deal from more experienced companies like Microsoft shows that behind the mask of technical naivette is a company with strong business sense.

If I was competing with a company that produced the dominant operating system and Web browser used to access my service, I'd figure ways to disintermediate them. Perhaps by making deals with OEMs so that all the defaults for online services such as search which ships on PCs point to my services. Maybe I could incentivize them to do this if there is the promise of recurring revenue by giving them a cut of ad revenue from searches performed on said portal pages.

Of course, this may not be what http://www.google.com/ig/dell is for, but if it isn't I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't eventually become the case.

 

Via Miguel De Icaza I found the post Fear is the mind killer from the Jesus General blog. It states

Our Leader hasn't caught Osama bin Laden, but he's doing a bang up job rounding up brown people.

From the documentary, Persons of Interest:

SYED ALI

"Syed Ali was a partner in a successful securities firm prior to September 11th. Following an unrelated business dispute, one of his partners told the FBI Syed was a terrorist. The authorities stormed his house and found, among other things, a visitor's pass to the World Trade Center and his son's flight simulator video game. Syed was held on Rikers Island for 100 days. He lost his business; family and friends became scared off by the terror allegations. The government dropped all terrorist charges against Syed Ali. He now operates a limousine franchise. Previously a homemaker, his wife, Deliliah, found work as a legal secretary and hospital clerk."

NABIL AYESH

"Nabil is originally from Palestine. He was arrested on September 11 2001 while stopped at a traffic light in Philadelphia. "Where are you from?" Nabil remembers the officer asking him. "Israel," Nabil answered. The officer asked Nabil if he was Israeli or Arabic. "I said I'm Arabic, and they said you're under arrest." Nabil was detained for one year and seventeen days. He was never charged with anything. His wife and children were all deported back to Palestine. After he was released Nabil got a working permit and a job as a contractor. "I am trying to get my life back together," he said, "But it's hard. It was hard for me in jail. Now my main concern is my family." Nabil was re-arrested in April 2003 when police in Syracuse, NY pulled over a speeding car in which he was a passenger. He was held in a Batavia, NY jail and then deported to the West Bank, where he was reunited with his wife and four children."

MATEEN BUTT

"Mateen Butt, 26, came to the United States from Pakistan when he was nine years old. He lives in Valley Stream, New York and was working as a telecommunications analyst on Sept. 11. On Sept. 18 2002, ten officers surrounded Mateen's house at 6 a.m. and took him away in shackles. He was told he was being detained because of an application for a work visa he filed when he wad 16 years old. Mateen was interrogated and asked whether he was a Muslim and attended a Mosque, but he refused to answer. He was detained in both Middlesex and Bergen County. Mateen's experience in prison affected him dramatically. He has become much more religious and no longer feels safe here in the United States. "I don't feel free any more," he said, "I don't have the same feeling." Mateen's mother, Naz, has sold her Subway sandwich shop and the family plans to return to Karachi, Pakistan, a land Mateen has not known since he was a child."

There are a couple more profiles on the site which detail some of the people's whose lives have been changed by being part of the collateral damage in the United States's "War on Terror". Of course, they could have had it worse.

When I read blog posts like Shelley Powers They're Back or Robert Scoble's Microsoft takes down Chinese blogger (my opinions on that), I wonder why I tend to see American bloggers writing angry missives about perceived injustices in faraway lands but never about the oppression by government in their own countries. I guess it's all a case of Luke 6:41 in action.

 

Thanks to Miguel De Icaza, I found an interesting speech by Harold Pinter which is reprinted in the article Art, Truth and Politics. Parts of the speech ramble at times but there is a particularly potent message which has been excerpted below

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant.

The winners get to write the history books. I wonder what they'll say about this era in a hundred or a thousand years from now.

 

I recently read two posts on the official Google blog about the recent hubub around their efforts to digitize books and make them searchable over the Web. The posts are Why we believe in Google Print and The point of Google Print.

My immediate personal reaction was how different Google is from Microsoft when it comes to blogging. On the one hand Google is quick to fire people who don't toe the party line in their blogs while Microsoft encourages its employees to show their individual voices even if they sometimes disagree with the company's party line. On the other hand, Microsoft frowns on employees commenting on pending legal actions such as lawsuits while Google has its employees blogging their side of the story in an official capacity. The common thread here is "controlling the message". Google is all about that.

The other thing that struck me about Google's messaging around Google Print was pointed out by Dave Winer in his post  A turning point for the Web?

It's time to realize that Google is no longer the little company we used to love. They're now a huge company that pushes individuals around like a lot of other huge companies. They need some balance to their power. And it's ridiculous to blindly take their side on every issue. Sometimes they're wrong, and I believe this is one of those times. It's certainly worth considering the possibility that they're wrong.

Here's where the point about controlling the message shows up. By any measure, Google is multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation. However whenever its executives speak, they do an excellent job of portraying the company as if it is the altruistic side project of a bunch of geeky college kids. I don't just mean their corporate slogan of "Do No Evil" although it is one manifestation of this strategy. Better examples are Sergey Brin's comments at the recent Web 2.0 conference  where he states that their motives for creating the Google AdSense program was to help keep content-based websites stay in business. Of course, syndicating ads now brings in about three quarters of a billion dollars in revenue for them a quarter.

So what does this have to do with Google Print? Well, I personally don't buy computer books anymore thanks to the Web and search engines. The last book I bought was Beginning RSS and Atom Programming and that's only because I wrote one of the forewards. The only time I've opened a computer book in the past year was recently when I cracked open the reference section of Dynamic HTML when looking for some JavaScript minutae. If I had a good Web-based search engine for content within the book I wouldn't have needed the book. Also, I've been wanting a cheap or free Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for JavaScript for quite some time. If I'd found an ad for a JavaScript IDE while searching for content within the book in my 'hypothetical book search engine' I definitely would have clicked on it and maybe purchased the IDE. My 'hypothetical book search engine' would wean me completely off of needing to buy computer books while probably making a tidy sum for itself by selling my eyeballs to software companies trying to sell me IDEs, profilers, debuggers and software training. 

My point is that Google Print will likely make the company a lot of money and could cost certain publishes a lot of money in lost sales. Even if it doesn't, the publishing industry will likely cede some control to Google. That's what these lawsuits are about and from that perspective I can understand why various publishers have initiated lawsuits with Google. To frame this as 'the evil publishing industry is trying to prevent us from completing our corporate mission of making information more accessible to users' is disingenuous at best and downright manipulative at worst.

Markets are conversations, to succeed in the marketplace you have to dominate the conversation and control it to suit your needs. Google is definitely good at that.

 

Below is a mishmash of thoughts that crossed my mind while at the Web 2.0 conference last week.

• If you attended the conference you'd have gotten the impression that "web 2.0" isn't about technology or about social effects, it is about money. Specifically "web 2.0" is a meme that tries to describe the characteristics of the new generation of startups that have gained success either by IPOing (e.g. Google) or being bought by large companies (e.g. Flickr). The targets of this meme are VCs (to tell them what kinds of companies to invest in), startups (to tell them what kinds of companies to emulate) and big companies (to tell them what kinds of companies to buy). The fact that there multiple panelists were VCs is also very telling.

• Google is the new Microsoft. Several times during the conference, it was brought up that Google has replaced Microsoft as the company that Silicon Valley companies love to hate because it enters nascent markets and dominates them (e.g. there was visible negative reactions by some audience members to the announcement of Google Reader) 

• Microsoft isn't on anyone's radar in this audience except as an example of an aging dinosaur or the butt of some joke. This is consistent with the impressions I've seen at other conferences such as ETech and Gnomedex.

• Just like in the dotbomb days of 1999/2000, most "web 2.0" companies don't have a business model besides getting bought by a big company. The new crutch many of them lean on is Google AdSense when queried about how they plan to be profitable.

• Sun Microsystems is living on borrowed time. Their business strategy now seems to be one giant Hail Mary play.

• The folks at Yahoo! Inc totally get it. If I was at Google I'd probably spend as much time worrying about them as I do about Microsoft.

• Meebo reminds me a lot of the dotbomb days. It's basically an AJAX version of Trillian.  Building an AJAX version of Trillian is cool from a geeky perspective but I honestly don't see them lasting long except if they get bought by some bigger player like Google, Yahoo!, MSN or maybe even Trillian.

 

Like everyone else I have been stunned by what I'vee seen on the various news channels about the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. I don't really have the words to express myself so I'll point to the words of others that express how I feel

1. From Shelley Powers's post Stopping the World

   However, I’m finding that the contention and anger surrounding this event is becoming increasingly difficult to absorb. I can’t seem to maintain enough detachment to keep from being pulled completely in, and by the end of the day, I’m feeling emotionally drained and physically sick. Some of this is coming from the worries, frustrations, and the sense of loss–of people, of history–because of Katrina. But not all.

   Debate should energize, not drain. When it doesn’t, you need to step away. When I read the headline, Condi returns to DC after Bloggers expose vacation about how wrong it was for Rice to buy expensive shoes while people are suffering in New Orleans, it was enough. And I find I don’t have the words to explain why.

   While I’m taking a breather, some folks with good thoughts:

   Joseph Duemer: Small Town Accountability

   Jeneane Sessum: President Bush Declares War on Weather

   Dave Rogers: What can I say and Unbelievable

   A question and answer that Dave Winer had about the future impact of Katrina–beyond the South. In particular, check out the comments associated with the question.

   Loren Webster: Two Worlds Apart

   Frank Paynter: Down on our Luck

   Scott Reynen: Fear Kills

   Sheila Lennon provides a continuously updated round of news.

   Norm Jenson: Incompetence

   Charles Eicher: Outrage Overload

   Karl: We would have fought or died

   Lauren points to Culture of Life

   There are others, but this is a good start.
2. From Doc Searls's post Prophecies 

   This event won't have ripple effects. The consequences will be tidal: on transportation, on agriculture, on lumber and other supplies, on retailing, on churches and on citizens across the country who will need to take on the burden of caring for refugees and helping others start new lives.

   Katrina also force us to face a subject even Demoncrats[sic] have stopped talking about, although it lurks beneath everything: class. When the dead are counted, most of them will have been poor. Count on it.

3. From Paul Graham's essay Inequality and Risk

   Like many startup founders, I did it to get rich. But not because I wanted to buy expensive things. What I wanted was security.