January2006

 

Who's that tapping at my door?

by David Holtzman

Okay, maybe there's justification for domestic surveillance in some cases. I can imagine some extreme situations where dedicated Kiefer Sutherland-like agents are trying to prevent an awful disaster and they need to know what a possible terrorist is talking about, even if she is a citizen.

So I have a suggestion: Don't push too hard on regulation for collection of data, push on the retention of information. Let them listen, then delete it immediately. Make them get a warrant to keep it a month, make it public if they've kept it for a year. Very few "timely" pieces of intelligence information are all that useful that long.

Make it a felony and arrest government workers that break this law.

Posted on January 31, 2006

Just fine

by Melody

Data godfather Choicepoint was fined $10 million last week by the FTC for inadvertently exposing personal information on 160,000 consumers. I don't say "customers", because consumers are not their friends.

This is the way to stop data breaches--fine the offending companies. Nothing else is likely to work in the long run. The FTC says that this is the biggest civil penalty that they've ever levied, which is sad. There's other cases like this out there.

There's a lot more of these data bleeding cases out there than are generally believed. They're coming out now because some states like California require public notification. Bad press is bad press, but money makes boards of directors listen.

Posted on January 30, 2006

Domestic surveillance okay against the strange

by David Holtzman

A New York Times/CBS News poll indicates that Americans are begrudgingly okay with domestic surveillance as long as it's directed against terrorists. When asked if they approved of President Bush's approval of eavesdropping without court order "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism", 53% said yes. That number sank to 46% when the word terrorist was stripped out of the question.

This is why the White House is carefully word spinning the controversy, renaming it "terrorist surveillance" instead of "domestic espionage."

It's disturbing that people are still tugged by the xenophobia that's behind much of the fearmongering since 9/11. If the terrorists were white supremacists, like Timothy MacVeigh, would the public feel that way? This poll sheds light on the average American's fear of the strange. It's also worrisome because some day, we will have a real threat again, and by then the Bush administration will have overworked the Chicken Little effect to the breaking point.

Posted on January 27, 2006

Football-headed child gets talk show

by David Holtzman

Stewie from the Fox TV show The Family Guy will be getting his own talk show later this year according to CNN.

The show will be Internet-only, signalling what I suspect will be a trend of alternative media outlets for entertainment, bypassing traditional distribution outlets (can you say "disintermediation"?) This is related to Mark Cuban and Steven Soderbergh's shotgun release of the film Bubble to HDnet, DVD and conventional theatre's simultaneously.

The reason that this movie is significant is because Family Guy can pull down real advertising dollars for Internet media.

I wonder what Stewie would say to the entertainment industry authorities that don't like this kind of encroachment? To quote out of context:

Hello.. I come bearing a gift. I'll give you a hint. It's in my diaper and it's not a toaster.
stewie.gif

Posted on January 26, 2006

Google: Ad Astra

by David Holtzman

I think that I see the future of Google. They will become a new entity...the intermediary between advertisers and consumers in any form of electronic media. Their recent purchase of dMarc, a radio advertising company, illustrates this.

So what would this mean? I expect acquisitions to continue: technology companies for getting and sorting information, maybe media buy companies and eventually direct marketing and advertising companies. How about Doubleclick?

Thinking this way, the day is coming when they cross the privacy line or at least the consumer friendly line. They'll have to if they wish to continue their growth. As of this month, they are now the 2nd biggest tech company (measured in market cap), after Microsoft.

Posted on January 25, 2006

Etiquette

by David Holtzman

Etiquette in the Digital Age -- Lesson #1

If someone emails you, email them back, don't call them. If they call you by cell, call them back by cell. Never cross-communicate unless you know a person well. People give you contact information for a reason and often reach out in the method that works best for them at that moment.. More importantly, they will look for a reply on the same medium. It's frustrating to have someone call your work voice mail in response to an email when you're traveling and are only picking up your messages once a day. Most importantly, it's the sign of a newbie.

Posted on January 24, 2006

Neutralize the Networks

by David Holtzman

Several newspapers have been picking up the continuing story of the new business model that the Telcos are touting: two-tiered Internet access. In a nutshell, they will charge more for "better access" to certain sites.

Their metaphor? Airlines; it's kinda like flying business class vs. Coach.

Consumers' fear? Every other example of multi-tiered service that I can think of results in a generally flattened experience for the consumer with the profits being sucked up like a milkshake by the industry. Self-service gas started as a "benefit". It quickly became the norm. Cable television and Tivo started as a premium, "advertisement-less" service. After we settled into the models, they lowered the boom. In fact, Tivo's ad plans smell far worse than the networks, not in quantity but in creepy intrusiveness.

Oink appeal? Capitalism. Let them do it because they can. It's found money, right? They didn't build the Internet, the US government did. The hundreds of billions of dollars of E-Commerce are flowing through their lines as a benign pass-through. VoIP may be a different animal, but there's ways of handling that separately.

My solution? It's time to nationalize the telcos. Bernie Ebbers is in jail, the industry virtually collapsed in the late '90s, partly from rampant greed driving capital outlays in global fiber. Take them back into the government for half a generation and then privatize them after they've been rehabilitated. They don't deserve to survive the way they are.

Posted on January 23, 2006

What's so funny about police states loving to act underhandedly?

by David Holtzman

The Bush administration released a lengthy legal document yesterday arguing that the President's powers under the Constitution constitutes a Congressional "trump card" that renders any legislative attempt to curtail the Excutive Branch's actions as null and void. Specifically they were referring to the 1978 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that was put in place to stop rampant and egregious domestic espionage acts by the last out-of-touch-and-control Republican president, Richard Nixon.

I woke up in a generous mood, so rather than just dismissing this argument as the diluted legal product of a self-serving and insular group of well-fed and priviledged white men, I thought about it.

Why is warrantless domestic espionage so bad?

Deep in my heart I don't believe that the Justice department and NSA are really trying to listen to each of us bitching about taxes or even about the President. Things arent' that far gone. They're probably doing what they say they're doing, monitoring calls going to and from shaky mideast countries. The intelligence that they've gained is probably useful occasionally and it might actually help stop a terrorist plot. I have enough faith in America and Americans that more and more insiders will rebel if the program is abused for non patriotic reasons.

So?

Liberals and Conservatives, the denizens of the outer political wings, tend to use "slippery slope" arguments to explain why they don't like something that by itself is not too harmful, but taken to an extreme is devastating. Moderates hate this argument and bitterly attack it, calling it alarmist. We've all had it before.

It applies here, though. Unchecked domestic espionage is bad enough, because it will be used for non intelligence reasons eventually. Nixon did. They'll use it against critics of the Administration, reporters and any other dissident and dissernter, because in the rarified air of the Olympian White House, we all look like ants, and as such, we're either helping the hive or we're enemies.

The more compelling reason to be against this though, is because of the legal justification that they're using. It is an odious and unAmerican argument that should be stomped now, once and for all. This tautology of superpresidential power can be used to legitimize any action. Any action at all that's used for "wartime".

And by the way, if we're at war, how about capturing Bin Laden and ending it?

Posted on January 20, 2006

Search for Gold

by David Holtzman

One of the most underrated assets in Internet companies is their search databases. Most consumer companies value their customer data as priceless, but ignore the dynamic, yet valuable records of what their customers are looking for. It's pure marketing gold. Verisign has DNS records, Google has raw searches and Amazon has book searches. Often what people were looking for and didn't get, is more valuable than what they found.

This information is usually not exploited, but could be. It is, of course a privacy nightmare, but a marketing dream. The IP ownership is usually ambiguous or nonexistent so whoever possesses the information can do pretty much what they want with it.

I also expect the government to start glomming onto these records for security reasons. That's when we'll have the legal experts weighing in on ownership.

Posted on January 19, 2006

CNennui

by David Holtzman

I watch CNN every morning when I work out. It's great because I get so angry watching how the station has sunk into the whoredom of media depravity that I find renewed strength and drive. Every time another blonde girl goes missing somewhere I get to another dime on my bench press--it's like a MacLuhanesque-drinking game.

You can't tell what the real news is anymore because they're so obsessed with celebrity stories and SMWP events (Stupid Missing White People). You can go for days without seeing an Iraq story, weeks to get a body count number. For those of us old enough to remember, what a change from Vietnam where Walter Cronkite would shove it in our face every dinner.

I hate the way they have paid advertisements masquerading as news: Rally whats-his-name, a Steven Seagull look-alike who grimly reports each morning that airports are 45 minutes delayed in the name of Travelocity (completely useless information and generally wrong). At Christmas time, they sold airtime to dot coms to report on what peoplle were buying in their little E-elf way. Not news, not even statistically valid.

They simper, they giggle, they titter. The only news show with a laugh track.

Thank God for Miles O'Brien. He has a dark side, a sense of humor and I suspect, just a little bit weary cynicism about his profession and his job.

Things have gotten reallly bad when you have to watch Al Jazeera to get your news.

Posted on January 18, 2006

Microsoft resolve -- evolve or dissolve

by David Holtzman

Microsoft doesn't get half the credit it deserves from techies and too much from everyone else. Big secret: Software doesn't necessarily get better from more money. Microsoft still has the same development problems that everyone else has: testing, configuration management and testing. When you consider the amount of testing that the company has to conduct for every new line of code that they introduce, it's amazing that Windows works at all.

Bill Gates, like Henry Ford, forced much needed conformity on a complex and messy industry at a time when it needed it most. I remember how memory and serial ports were often incompatible with the rest of the system. The mature growth of the PC industry owes a lot to Microsoft and although it's easy to trash them for proprietary interfaces, they're still and have always been more open than Apple.

What I wonder is what now? Whither goes Redmond? Vista aside, I wonder if Microsoft has become marginalized as an Operating Systems company and commoditized as an Applications company. I think that it's time that they reinvented themselves again. They've done it before. Let's not forget that when they were the world's most valuable company ten years ago; they turned on a dime and drank the Internet Kool-Aid.

One strategy would be for them to get deeper into content. They've tried this and I believe, have been mostly unsuccessful for various reasons, many of which revolve around the fact that they're a geek company, not a media company.

Another possiblity would be to become the "trust" company and provide authentication services as a value-added layer on top of .net. To do this, they might do well to buy Verisign...

At one time I thought that Windows CE would own the embedded OS marketplace for gadgets, but I now believe that Linux has that one locked.

I think that the right answer is twofold: First, the company should break into two or three new companies, mostly to throw worldwide antitrust people off the scent; one for OS and one for applications . Second, lay some money down on some long odds possiblities. This might include grid computing, swarming device control software or identity management.

It's time for evolution.

When you're the biggest fish in the pond, sometimes it's a signal to drop the gills and invent feet.

Posted on January 17, 2006

Fair or foul?

by David Holtzman

The Associated Press filed a story out of St. Louis that Major League Baseball is being sued by a fantasy baseball league over whether or not they have the right to use post season team and player statistics. They had been licensing them from MLB, but last year the sport declined to renew the license because it had a better deal elsewhere. Recreating the statistics is easy, but what's at stake is who owns the intellectual property rights to the numbers themselves? There's a lively debate going on in Slashdot about it.

At first glance this seems silly. Of course the stats should be available to anyone who wants them. But I thought about this and wondered why? Most of us rebel against the idea because it conjures up a chilling world where everyone owns meta information. Each of us become a component popped inside some kind of marketing machine--maybe we lose the rights to our own shopping patterns. It could happen.

On the other hand, from MLB's perspective, it's lost revenue. They feel that they should be able to make money out of it for their investors. After all, they certainly trademark rights in the team, the mascot, the players' images, even the words "Major League Baseball". You can't broadcast a game or even a piece of it in any media without their approval, so why not statistics?

In my opinion, there's two reasons why not. The first is that it becomes part of the historical record. As a society, our history belongs to everyone as part of the common experience. The implications of a capitalist history are truly Orwellian.

The second reason is to go back to the reasons that we have intellectual property protection. IP is not supposed to be lottery ticket material, found money falling from the heavens. Rather, it's meant to protect the innovator long enough to recoup a risky investment and make a reasonable profit. It's society's way of giving us ice cream for cleaning up our room. Given this background, I see no work or investment involved in having games that generate statistics. They're part of the historical record and it's just too bad for MLB.

Posted on January 16, 2006

Explore and store, evermore

by David Holtzman

Slashdot quotes a story that Samsung will begin manufacturing a 16 Gig flash chip that will cost about $90. The story discusses it's possible inclusion in Windows Vista-powered computers.

I think that the real significance of flash chips being swept away by Moore's law is what it does for swarmed and embedded gadgetry. Everything digital is starting to communicate via low-cost wi-fi chips and now they'll have substantive storage capabilities. 16 Gigs will store a lot of log files and wll provide almost unlimited transactional memory for household appliances, cell phones and of course, surveillance devices. The low-cost, minimal power requirements and high storage profile of these chips will make extreme espionage a reality.

Posted on January 13, 2006

VCs in the jungle

by David Holtzman

Like virginity, Venture Capitalists are better appreciated as a concept than a reality. Knowledgable tech executives privately hate them, although they're afraid to show it publicly. Lawyers and investment bankers work with them and see them socially, but mumble under their breath, complaining about hubris. The press loves them and politicians put them up on pedestals. They control truly vast amounts of wealth; none of it theirs and can wave their hand and turn a punk into a philanthropist.

How do they work?
VCs have partnerships that manage multiple funds. Each fund is invested in by Limited Partners, who are usually institutions, sometimes high net-worth individuals. They can range from 30 million to a billion dollars. Some firms manage 10 funds simultaneously by the same small group of partners. They invest in companies, usually at an early, risky stage, and take a sizable percentage of the company in return; ideally around 40%.

What's a VC like?
They used to be senior executives in related industries. They would bring a wealth of operational experience, connections and mature decision-making to the young companies in addition to money. It's different today. Most VCs are young, ivy-league graduates with MBAs. Some of them also have a short stint in technical companies and engineering degrees. Most of them dress the same, high end polo shirts, khakis, comfortable shoes and maybe custom blue blazers.

What's good about them?
As individuals, they're intelligent, social and upstanding members of their business community. As an industry, they inject badly needed capital into the areas of our economy that would most benefit from innovation. As an investment, they're superb, often returning 2 or 3 times the original amount to their LPs, many of whom are pension funds.

What's bad about them?
It's a myth that they offer a lot of value to the fledgling company. They could, but only as long as they're actively engaged. Most of them are involved in half a dozen businesses at a time and it's too easy of them to lose touch. The biggest problem is that they don't really understand business as a seat-of-your-pants visceral pursuit. Business is about integrity. VCs are not. That makes all the difference. True entrepreneurs create their companies one relationship at a time and need to be able to count on their partners to watch their backs.

VCs have their own agenda at three levels in addition to helping to build the business that they've just invested in. One is to get the highest return for their LPs. The second is to make their firm look good, regardless of which fund is involved. The third is to win their internal power struggles with their partners. When you're seated across the table from a VC, remember that you're dealing with a cast of dozens of people, many of whom you will never meet, all of whom will soon have vocal opinions about your business.

VCs take board seats. As Hamlet said, "Aye, there's the rub." They can kill a company through bad actions, through inactivity or most commonly, by maneuvering the fundraising process so that the company is critically dependent upon them for follow-on funding, then like a street dealer, withholding the fix until the price sensitivity disappears in a wave of shakes.

Yet, they're the only game in town. VCs are the only source of the early stage funding that are the life blood of rapidly growing tech companies.

I offer three rules for dealing with VCs

1. Don't take money from someone that you wouldn't comfortable socialize with. If you don't like them now, you'll despise them later.
2. Read the term sheet. Know what you're getting into now, so you're not surprised later. There are no "standard clauses". Every word may be important to you someday when you're getting sued or thinking about it yourself.
3. Stack the board with people that have stature and that you trust. It may not make a difference, but if the board turns against you, too, you will be a miserable human being.

Posted on January 12, 2006

Time for a Privacy PAC?

by David Holtzman

It's now illegal to "annoy" someone on the Internet. President Bush signed Sen Sensenbrenner's VIolence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act last week. Declan McCullagh does a good job describing the implications in CNET.

As the name suggests, it was slipped into the mundane Justice Department's funding bill as a provision to prevent so-called cyberstalking. The language makes it illegal to annoy someone with anonymous email or a blog.

As I understand it, the test for triggering this provision is that it has to be well, annoying, must be done with the intent to annoy and must be anonymous. The penalty is fines and up to two years in jail.

Several lawyers have posted around the Net claiming that this law is unenforcable due to the First Amendment. Maybe true, but it will take the Supreme Court to strike it down. Like similar rules in the past (CDA and COPA), the true test is in the enforcement by the Justice Department until someone can challenge it in court.

SIgh. Why don't legislators get it? This is the kind of bill that sounds great in a vacuum, I mean, who wants to vote FOR cyberstalking? But, the implications to free speech are chilling and handing the Bush Administration another weapon against civil liberties is like buying Jeffrey Dahmer a cookbook.

What I'd like to know is where are the "privacy" organizations when these kind of bills are being passed? The ACLU is an after-the-fact lawsuit kind of shop, but what about EFF?

I think that it's time for some new privacy organizations that will lobby before these idiot bills get passed.

Do we need a Privacy Pac?

Posted on January 10, 2006

Sneeze in a crowd

by David Holtzman

You're much better off using a less popular operating system like Mac OS X. Why? Because it's not worth the effort to attack them with complex viruses. Macs are popular among a certain set, but they are rarely office space dense. In other words, they tend to be onesie, twosie located. One Mac guy, 5 Windows people, one Linux. Just like real diseases, viruses propagate better in tight living conditions. Mac's weakness is also their strength.

The implication is that if Macs become mainstream, they will become less attractive.

Posted on January 09, 2006

AND DNA

by David Holtzman

UPI reports that the British DNA database has now grown to 3 million records. Soon it's expected to reach 4.25 million samples or 1 in every 14 people. The policy is to record and keep samples of those convicted, as well as those acquitted, arrested but not charged and victims.

It doesn't take Steven Spielberg to write the script for the movie here. The potential for privacy damage is astronomical. The DNA database could be used to manage health care by dropping the genetically ill, family relationships could be uncovered that are better left unsaid and some dark day, there might be a reason why a particularly intolerant government might want to discover everyone who had a specific ethnic background. Pogroms are much easier with DNA data bases.

I reocgnize the value for law enforcement. What I'd prefer to see would be very strict accountability standards for usage of the DNA. Absent that, the collections should not happen. Think of massive repositories of personal information like an atomic weapon. Even if it's never used, the idea that it's out there somewhere keeps many people from sleeping well at night.

Posted on January 06, 2006

Backing into trouble

by David Holtzman

Marriot International announced this week that they'd misplaced backup tapes equating to the personal information of 206,000 time-share customers. The information included credit card numbers.

These stories are common. We've heard similar stories last year from SAIC and Choicepoint.

Has anyone come up with a better approach to backups yet? How about encypting the media prior to storage along with strict accountability for the tapes. It's hard to believe that people still don't realize the threat posed by backups, yet there it is.

I've long advocated that holding the Board of Directors of public corporations responsible for security would be the best approach. In most companies, the authority and responsibility rest in different individuals, diffusing the audit trail beyond recognition.

Posted on January 05, 2006

What's black and white and red all over?

by David Holtzman

Answer: the Internet.

The greatest medium for the spreading of hoaxes ever created. The most recent example is the Dartmouth student who claimed that DHS had investigated him because he had requested a copy of Mao's little red book.

Well, it wasn't true. Lots of people believed it, including Senator Kennedy, (in the interests of objectivity, I did too). Many of us wanted to believe ill of DHS anyway, so this didn't seem like a stretch.

Good hoaxes start with something that maybe hasn't happened, but could have, a kernel of believability. Drop this grain of truth into a distribution medium and step back and watch it spread.

I wondered if this effect would be triggered off during the last election, but outside of one phake photoshop pic of Kerry--nothing.

I suspect that this time will be different. This hoax spread too easily and even though it would have been simple for reporters to debunk (and it was), this didn't curtail its reach. When you have a highly contested, wide-open contest like the 2008 presidential election with literally tens of billions of special interest dollars riding on the outcome, expect some chicanery. More to come on this topic later.

Posted on January 04, 2006

A tale of two cities: CES and 22C3

by David Holtzman

As media companies continue to chisel away at the brittle consumer rights remaining in the Fair Use doctrine and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and government pushes low-cost surveillance technology to the very street corner, a quiet revolution fueled by an emotional backlash to these digital shackles has begun. This revolution uses similar technology to push back, yin to yang. Encryption on DVDs are fought with decryption. Surveillance is fought with sabotage, which was interestingly enough, the same strategy of the original Luddites who destroyed milling machines in nascent industrial age England.

Wired reports that many discussions being held at the European Hacker Conference going on in Berlin right now (also known as the 23rd Chaos Communications Congress or 23C3) deals with this obfuscation of surveillance concern.

Hackers have figured out ways to jam cameras with lasers and modify face recognition software to insert black bands over the images of human faces.

The fundamental truth of technology is that for every action there is a reaction. As CES is going on in Vegas, its doppelganger is meeting in Berlin. Hollywood studios discuss digital film watermarking to stop piracy as the buccaneers themselves meet quietly in Europe and figure out how to board the steadily sinking ship of intellectual protectionism while firing back at the privacy privateers.

Posted on January 03, 2006

Inhaling, sex and terrorism - the three big lies

by David Holtzman

President Bush is aggressively defending his recently uncovered, possibly illegal, domestic spying program by arguing that the program is limited, legal and necessary to protect Americans in a time of war. The ugly rhetoric of protectionism has been used as a body bag to zip up many ugly problems, shielding them from public view. But for this argument to be effective, there must be an ending.

When is a war not a war? How about defining some criteria for an end to the war on terrorism? I have a nasty suspicion that as long as a single human being on the planet hates the US badly enough to harm its people or things, that this war will continue.

There's only two ways to fix that situation: the first would be by making friends everywhere. I don't think that I need to spend any time talking about why that hasn't or will not happen. The second choice is uglier--genocide. I believe that the only way to satisfy the President's criteria will be the extermination or at least disenfrachisement of all dissidents, a situation that I for one, find unacceptable.

How about some public debate on what the exit conditions are for the war on terrorism? Hell, the war on Polio is still being fought by the March of Dimes even thought the disease was eliminated in America in 1979.

Posted on January 02, 2006