Crossing Boundaries…

Share

I remember being fascinated by a TV series from the late 1970′s called CONNECTIONS. Created and hosted by science historian James Burke, CONNECTIONS set out to explain how many seemingly small, disconnected historical events may have ended up becoming key factors in the shaping of the world we live in today. Here’s a clip from the first episode:

This show was an eye-opener for me. It was the first time I saw anyone take science, math, religion, geography, the arts, and culture, and weave them together into a seamless historical fabric. It took the disciplines I had been taught as isolated subjects throughout my entire educational career and combined them in a way that was so much greater than the sum of the individual parts. By demonstrating how the progress that took place in each of these seemly discrete disciplines was actually interconnected, Burke brought a context to the fields of knowledge I possessed that made them so much richer. Even more important, CONNECTIONS helped changed my thinking on a topic of critical significance to our future.

How we approach the process of education in our society…

If you think about it, give or take a few outliers, the entire population of the planet will have been completely replaced a century from now. And the one thing that everyone can depend on is that change will be a continuous and accelerating part of that process. It will sweep away old roles and institutions, and introduce new concepts and capabilities that would be difficult for us to extrapolate from what we know today.

In large part, it is the job of our educational systems to empower us with the wisdom, knowledge and tools we will need to operate effectively in this future world we can barely imagine. If you look at the state of education in the world today, it would be fair to say that it is struggling to keep up. While tools and subject matter have certainly changed over the past 100 years, the process and framework at the heart of how we educate has seen little innovation.

I’ve embedded an excellent talk given at a TED Conference a few years ago by Sir Kenneth Robinson – a deep thinker on the nature of creativity. During the presentation, Sir Kenneth focuses in on the shortcomings of our current approach to education – specifically the way it seems to elevate the importance of conformity while devaluing the role of creativity.

There are two great quotes from this presentation that I would like to call specific attention to. The first concerns a willingness to take chances:

What we do know is, if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original. If you’re not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong.

The more our world changes, the less we can look to the past for clear answers. Success in the future will be far more dependent on our ability and willingness to creatively apply the knowledge we have to new situations that lack a precedent of action.

The next rather long quote talks specifically to the nature of intelligence and creativity in people:

We know three things about intelligence: One, it’s diverse, we think about the world in all the ways we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn’t divided into compartments. In fact, creativity, which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value, more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.

The importance of a multidisciplinary understanding of the world that Sir Kenneth references in this presentation was also the key point made in the CONNECTIONS series. The truly great inventions and discoveries didn’t come from a linear progression of research and reason. They freely crossed the boundaries of academic thought, often forming from the chaotic confluence of passion, creativity, insight, and intellect. They came to be not as a single moment of brilliance, but as a series of smaller breakthroughs that ultimately culminated in something profound and transformational.

This process defined the course of our history.

And it will also define how well we deal with our future…

This entire presentation by Sir Kenneth is both insightful and thought provoking. While I recognize that this video is fairly long, it is well worth watching in it’s entirety.

The Politics Of Power…

Share

There has been a lot of talk about the need for us to develop and deploy a smart power grid in this country. It is often mentioned as one of the pillars of our new 21st century economy, and an area we are going to need to commit some serious capital to.

blog-unitedstatespowergrid

In an excellent article Follow the Money in yesterday’s WSJ Online, three prominent venture capitalists discuss this topic in the broader context of investment opportunities in the clean energy space. While the article is definitely worth reading in it’s entirety, there is one quote from it I’d like to focus on here.

In talking specifically about the need to build out our power transmission infrastructure, Vinod Khosla from Khosla Ventures had this to say:

By the way, we don’t need government to build transmission. If we solve the eminent-domain problem, there’s enough money in transmission that private industry would build all of it. They [governments] have to give you right of way and eminent-domain rights. So, it’s not that difficult a problem to solve, and it’s not about money.

Everything Vinod says about private capital being more than ready to build out the grid is completely true. I’ve verified this with my friend Edward J. Terillo, a former energy analyst who knows this space intimately. Money is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the chance to do this build-out.

What’s holding this money back is that these proposed power lines need to run somewhere – and nobody wants that ‘somewhere’ to be anywhere close to them.

The center of politics when it comes to rebuilding our aging power infrastructure isn’t in Washington. It’s in ‘Anytown, USA’. Most people probably don’t pay much attention to the specifics of this issue. They may not know the difference between traditional power lines and the proposed ‘smart grid’, and have no real understanding of the stress our current national power transmission system is under. But what they will pay close attention to – and in serious numbers – is the mere suggestion that new power lines might be running through their neighborhood. What they absolutely know is that a power line running anywhere near their house will reduce its value in a significant way.

And they will do everything in their power to oppose it.

Mr. Khosla points out that one solution to this is for the government to grant these companies “right of way and eminent-domain” so that they can make these investments unencumbered. Based on that, he believes that getting our power distribution infrastructure upgraded is “…not that difficult a problem to solve”.

I don’t see it that way.

While mandating ‘rights-of-way’ may be sound in theory, what it means in practice is that the federal or state government will need to co-opt the rights of local townships and force them to permit these build-outs on lands within their jurisdiction. It also means that homeowners impacted by these mandated rights-of-way, while probably being marginally compensated for any land taken from them, would be unlikely to receive compensation for any negative impact it may have on their home values. I can’t imagine that there are that many people in Congress or the state legislatures that would want to have their name tied to any legislation like this.

But even assuming that these government bodies could marshal the political will to wrest control of these lands from local municipalities (not a given by any means), they would still need to determine where any new power lines sould be run. And that is where this process would really spin out of control. A broad collation of local rights groups and environmentalists will certainly launch a range of challenges to tie the planning process up in court. Individual homeowners that are impacted by these lines will be able to do the same. Politics will come in to this at every level, with federal agencies going out of their way to present plans that won’t disproportionately impact any specific demographic, while local politicians will look to protect their electoral power base.

And somewhere in that mess, the actual engineers might have something to say as well.

Perhaps a more practical solution, when all costs are considered, is to run the grid underground when it passes near or through any populated area. On a per mile basis, it costs about five times as much to bury the lines as it does to run them on towers. However, taking that approach may stir up far less opposition – utilities lines of all sorts are buried all around us – and might even end up costing less on a full project life cycle basis than delaying implementation by decade or more and dealing with the cost of endless court challenges. We should probably also think more about local/edge based power generation – especially solar – and how that could change the demand profile a national level grid would need to handle.

Figuring out an approach that works for everyone is going to be tough. There are a lot of different interests with a stake in this, and political minefields are everywhere. Attempting to impose a federally mandated solution will meet fierce opposition that will cut across party lines. It will require all sorts of deal-making and back-scratching to get any type of agreement in place.

And it will take time.

As Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local.” And that will prove to be especially true when it comes to the politics of power

Is This RIM's Blackberry "Thunder"?…

Share

RIM’s upcoming “Thunder” is supposed to be their answer to the iPhone…

Based on this video over at Crackberry.com, I wouldn’t be too sure:

[Unfortunately this link has been removed by YouTube]

Assuming this video is genuine, I’m not terribly impressed by the Thunder…

While certainly functional, it doesn’t appear to be an “Apple Killer” by any means. Needing to use a “Press and Hold” to scroll the screen seems clunky, and the process for selection/click looks more like an “ATM” style experience than a modern touch screen. That said, it may be an early prototype, or even a total – albeit clever – fake (people are becoming quite good at that these days).

But if this is the real deal we’re looking at, I’m not sure what RIM hopes to accomplish with it. Maybe they want to position it as offering an iPhone experience, but on a real network like Verizon. That approach may sound good in theory, but I’m not sure how it would play in the marketplace. Even if they don’t own one, people have a good idea how great the iPhone experience is. The bar has been set, even for die hard Verizon fans.

I have a lot of respect for RIM, but I was expecting to see something more.

Something “Wow!”.

Hopefully it will be there when Thunder is released…

UPDATE:

Thanks to a comment from reader JOHN, I have a new video to embed:

[This link has also been removed - can't keep up with the take-down orders!]

Based on John’s comment, I wanted to clarify some things in this post. The new Blackberry will be called the STORM 9530 not the THUNDER. The THUNDER will be the name of a GSM version of the device that will be released at some future date. Thanks John!

The Quest For iPhone 3G…

Share

There’s something special about having new technology the day it comes out…

I spent a big chunk of last Friday waiting on a couple of lines to get my hands on the newly launched iPhone 3G.

Based on my previous unsuccessful experience of trying to get the original iPhone from an AT&T store when it launched a year ago, I decided the Apple Store was the only way to go. Being in New York, I had the luxury of three choices, and decided to head to the newest (and least known) Apple Store over on 14th Street and Ninth Avenue – in the heart of the old meat packing district.

I wanted to document the experience for this blog, so I took a video camera along to record what it’s like being part of a line at an Apple launch event. This short video captures the highlights:

The new iPhone is great, but does have a few quirks and shortcomings that I’ll tell you about in a follow-up review. (Overall, it’s still the best “Smartphone” you can buy.)

Feel free to share.

Enjoy!…

Identity In A World Without Secrets (Part 1)…

Share

What does “identity” mean?…

That’s not as easy a question as it may seem at first.

While our gut level definition might be along the lines of “who a person is”, that would certainly be too broad to be useful. A more reasonable definition for identity might be “a list of the unique attributes and characteristics associated with a person”. In practical terms, our “identity” is the collection of ways other people use to recognize us.

And that makes identity perceptual – not absolute…

In direct social interactions, “identity” is a well understood concept. Typically, we establish our identity in one of two ways. When dealing with a person we know, our relationship with them allows them to vouch for us directly. This is personal trust. When dealing with people we don’t know, it becomes necessary for someone else that they know and trust to vouch for us instead. This is assigned trust. Since there is little likelihood that a trusted individual will always be around to vouch for us, assigned trust usually involves some type of proxy – typically in the form of a hard-to-get credential from a respected institution. Passports, state drivers licenses, and military ID’s are common examples. Assigned trust allows people to accept that the identity given to them by another institution is accurate without having to verify any information directly.

While not foolproof, this process works exceptionally well. Not only does the credential require some type of verification before being issued, it also needs to be presented physically when used, and any details on it need to match the presenter. It’s a simple but effective model that has been able to scale up to a global level.

Unfortunately, identity in the online world is far less mature…

While trusted authorities do exist online, none of them play more than a niche role in establishing identity. Companies may issue identity certificates to their employees so they can access internal resources and systems – but they carry no weight or significance anywhere else. And governments – the largest trust authorities in the physical world – play no role at all in online identity.

The sad fact is that online identity comes down to two fragile things.

Knowledge and secrets…

To establish my identity in the online world, I don’t have the option to use a certificate or digital ID. Instead, I am asked to provide detailed information about myself – things like my social security number, mother’s maiden name, favorite pet, or current employer. The logic behind this approach is that the things I am being asked for are not well known. Collectively, they are supposed to represent a “secret” – knowledge shared just between myself and the entity that is asking for it.

But like most people, I don’t just have a single trust based relationship online. And since there is no central trust authority, every trust based relationship requires that I establish my identity in a similar manner. Since they ask many of the same questions, knowledge that needs to be kept secret spreads to an increasingly broader circle. When combined with the number of copies of this information that are available in the physical, offline world, a major problem becomes apparent.

Secrets shared by too many people are no longer “secret”…

Information about us is everywhere.

First is the information we freely share. Some people provide an incredible number of details about themselves on sites like MySpace or Facebook, and it is amazing how many additional details can be uncovered about an individual by starting with that information and digging deeper. There’s more about them floating around out there than most people realize.

And then there is the information we have to give out. Bank account numbers are at the bottom of every check that we send out. Our social security number is on all our workplace, medical and financial records, and many official government documents associated with us – some of which are available for public inspection. Our address, email, and phone numbers are required by too many people to even keep track of. Many of the ‘trivia’ questions we are asked, like “Favorite Pet” or “Mother’s Maiden Name” are also used by sites as keys to recover forgotten passwords, and are known by more friends and coworkers than we realize. There are also countless more individuals with complete access to records containing our information as a part of the jobs they do. And not all of them can be trusted.

And then there are people who simply collect this information and sell it online.

Secrets are a transparent veil offering only an illusion of security…

Anyone that knows enough things about us – things that are not that difficult to find out – can simply become us online. They can use what they do know to gain access to things they don’t yet know. They can then start changing things like addresses and contact numbers, and mold our online identity into something they can more easily use to safely access our financial assets.

And it happens all the time…

Though I’ve discussed the lack of true identity in the context of the online world, it isn’t just limited to there. Someone using a telephone (our pre-internet global network) can do many of the same things – often with the unwitting help of the person on the other end of the line that should be protecting us. In today’s world, if someone doesn’t have to show up in person and present an ID, proof of identity comes down to what they know.

And if they know our “secrets”, they must be us…

Identity is a fundamental, almost axiomatic, human right – the right to be who we are, uniquely. But beyond that more philosophical perspective, it is also an essential component of all of our key social interactions. It is the cornerstone of most commerce, and a necessary ingredient of the increasingly transactional legal frameworks we operate in.

It is at the heart of the way we function as a modern society.

And it all depends on the quixotic notion of “keeping secrets”…

To Be Continued…
In Part 2 of this post, I’ll discuss both near term and structural approaches to securing identity online, and to dealing with the rampant global problem of identity theft.

Avoiding The Bidding Bubble…

Share

EBAY is a strange marketplace…

I have been part of the EBAY community for many years, both as a buyer and a seller. Over that time, I have had the opportunity to observe people’s bidding patterns, and have come to a pretty interesting conclusion.

Too many people on EBAY have no rational basis for the way they bid…

For those readers that don’t know how bidding works on EBAY, it’s actually pretty simple. You can enter the maximum amount you are willing to bid on an item, and EBAY will automatically raise your bid in fixed increments as other people bid against you. This is different from bidding in a live auction, where the amount you signal is actually placed as a bid. On EBAY, no matter what the maximum value was that you entered for your bid, you’ll only end up bidding the minimum you need to win an auction.

What I have found, however, is that when people are outbid, they will often come right back and adjust their “maximum” bid amount upward. I doesn’t matter that they might have had days to decide what their maximum bid should be. They suddenly want to bid higher when they see they are losing.

And within seconds they freely abandon reason…

Based on the general pattern of bidding behavior I have observed on EBAY, I would posit that there is only one truly rational bidding strategy that can be employed there.

Sniping…

“Sniping” is a typically pejorative term applied to the practice of placing bids on an auction item at the last possible moment before it ends. On an emotional level, other bidders tend to consider snipers something of a cross between a jerk and a thief. They become angry and indignant when a sniper sweeps in in the final seconds and “robs them of their victory”.

But emotions aside, the fallacy of bidding early is clear…

There is no first mover advantage in placing a bid. While it may appeal to a primal urge we have to “mark our territory”, early bidding does not offer any knowledge or control that can help the bidder create a more beneficial outcome for themselves.

In fact, the opposite tends to be true…

I see two key negative consequences from early bidding:

First, any bids placed before the final moments of an auction can stimulate an emotional competitive response in the market and drive the winning bid higher. In that case, these early bidders simply end up bidding against themselves. Second, auctions with existing bids tend to attract more interest than those without bids. And that increased interest will only work to the seller’s advantage – not to the buyers.

Bidding isn’t a personal competition. It’s a marketplace mechanism for determining the spot value of goods. Unfortunately, the social context of the bidding process can create “Bidding Bubbles” – emotional pockets that drive valuations above the rational worth of the items in question.

It happens with stock markets. It happens with housing markets.

And it happens on EBAY…

The process of bidding exploits our competitive nature to drive us to act against our broader self interest. It injects emotion into a situation best served by dispassion – turning interest into desire, and desire into desperation.

And it leads us to make irrational decisions…

Successful bidding on EBAY requires patience and discipline. You need to determine in advance the maximum amount you are willing to bid for an item. You need to wait to the very last moment, and place that maximum bid at a point in the auction when no one can react to it.

And you need to be willing to walk away without “winning”…

The Importance Of Chance…

Share

Is “knowing more” always desirable?…

As counter intuitive as it may seem, there can be a downside to “perfect knowledge” – to having a completely transparent view to something. The fact is, we are creatures of chance. Avoiding knowledge, or acting in spheres where knowledge is limited, are very real components of how we operate as individuals and as a society. I would go so far as to posit that we need an element of uncertainty around what we do if we want to function optimally.

A good example of this is the enforcement of traffic speed limits.

Many drivers operate in the ‘gray area’ that lives at the edge of existing laws. Most will regularly go 5-10 MPH above the posted speed limit, and some will be willing to do a lot more than that. They do this because it “gives them an edge”, and the chances of “getting caught” – of being penalized for the violation – are small.

And law enforcement counts on this…

Most local and state police forces generate meaningful revenue from traffic violators. They depend on having people who are willing to ‘take a chance’ by speeding so they can keep this money flowing into their treasury. To encourage this behavior, police will often tolerate a certain level of non-compliance to maintain a steady stream of revenue producing violators that go beyond it. In effect, they create a loosely defined safe zone that extends beyond what the law proscribes – a safe zone that baits people into violating the law so they will continue to operate in this revenue producing area of chance.

And they know that having perfect knowledge would hurt them…

A zero tolerance policy for speeding would probably be very effective. It could even be implemented in practical ways. Many major toll roads track where you enter and exit the road, and charge you based (loosely) on distance traveled. They also track the time you entered the road and the time you left. It wouldn’t take much for them to combine these to calculate your average speed, and to use that to automatically generate fines for those that clearly broke the speed limit.

It’s possible that doing this could generate a near-term spike in fine based revenue, but once people knew that any speed violations would be detected and punished, they would simply stop speeding.

And the revenue would dry up completely…

This bigger model they count on just doesn’t work without chance. So instead, a sub-optimal enforcement model is chosen that attempts to balance the desire for revenue generation with optimized traffic flow and respect for the law. It’s a model that introduces chance into the mix by consciously limiting the information law enforcement chooses to collect. Thus, we end up having randomly positioned highway patrol officers with radar guns looking for violators instead of a more comprehensive and effective approach.

And this desire for imperfect information appears to be reciprocal…

Most people I’ve asked (admittedly a far from scientific sampling) seem to prefer the less deterministic approach to getting a speeding ticket. The thought of automatically getting a “ticket in the mail” if they crossed some specific speed threshold seemed almost draconian to them. They would lose the option to go faster than other drivers – even if it isn’t something they would routinely do. This would force them to limit themselves to a certain speed, and become far more passive – something that goes against their inherently competitive nature.

So they prefer to take their chances instead.

What does all of this have to do with technology?…

blog-piracybutton.jpgThis preference for chance is at the heart of the dilemma facing the record industry. The RIAA’s attempts to sue individual illegal file sharers is essentially the online equivalent of the hidden patrol car looking for speeders. It is simply too random to change broad user behavior. Just like speeders, illegal file sharers would change their behavior if they knew they would be caught.

But they know odds are in their favor – so they don’t…

What’s interesting is that the recording industry – unlike law enforcement – hasn’t figured out a way to generate revenue from this user behavior. In fact, they actully want to try and end it completely, even though it presents them with real opportunities for meaningful revenue. They simply can’t get beyond their own narrow definition of how their business can work. Despite the significant market dislocation a business model change would entail, the potential upside of making the change is certainly more compelling than the “death spiral” the record industry has fallen into from clinging to the status quo.

They just need to be willing to take a chance…

What Is The RIAA's Real End Game?…

Share

The RIAA is on the attack again, but this time, with a slightly different spin…
blog-ripcd.jpg
You might have heard about the RIAA’s case against Jeffrey Howell. He was recently sued by the RIAA for downloading and sharing music files on his computer, an act that, even if widely practiced, is legally wrong. But this case seems to have caused an uproar because of the following snippet that was found in the brief against Mr. Howell:

Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. … Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

The uproar seemed to peak when the Washington Post published an article at the end of December claiming the Recording Industry was now going after not just file sharing but ‘unauthorized’ personal use of legally purchased media as well.

Without a doubt, that would be a scary development…

The statement in the brief is certainly ambiguous. It does express a new concept of ‘authorized copies’, and loosely claims that both the conversion of files to .mp3′s and their placement into a ‘shared folder’ contribute to making them ‘unauthorized copies’. While this wording may not appear to be exceptionally threatening now, if any of it makes its way into a future ruling in this matter, it could help create a base of precedent that the RIAA could leverage in the future to go after CD rippers.

But do they really want to?…

Yes and No. The recording industry has made no secret that they believe any use of media beyond direct playback is illegal. During testimony at a prior file sharing case, Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, asserted:

When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.

This isn’t so much a legal strategy as a business strategy. What the industry wants to do is change the rules and convert all different types of heretofore legal activities into new streams of revenue. If they need to sue some people along the way to make that happen, so be it.

Are they really allowed to do that?…

All that said, many bloggers have pointed that this type of copying is a protected action under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

While this may seem to cover ripping, a closer reading leads me to conclude that this probably isn’t the case. Specifically, there are two definitions within the statute that may be problematic.

According to the statute, the definition of “digital audio recording device” is:

“…any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Similarly, the definition of “digital audio recording medium” is :

“…any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Unfortunately for those looking for safe harbor in this act, neither of those statutory definitions would include the typical, general purpose computer or any disks or removable media. To make it apply, the courts would need to extend the definition of “device” to include software such as iTunes and other non-physical music players, and to extend the definition of ‘media’ to refer to folders and flash cards used to hold music.

As counterintuitive as it may sound, this is likely what the RIAA wants to see happen…

The reason for that is simple. Under the existing statute, if iTunes were to qualify as a recording device, it would be required support the Serial Copy Management System and be subject to mandatory royalty payments.

The serial copy management system allows a song to be copied to one device, but could then require that the hardware prohibit any copying beyond that if certain bits are set. The device the songs were copied to would become the ‘device’ subjected to the required royalty payment. This scheme is mandatory for all recording devices covered by this statute.

The RIAA is very shrewed…

If they were to litigate this issue, and the courts determine that ripping CD’s to computers isn’t a protected activity, they could then use that ruling as leverage with Apple et. al. to negotiate a revenue stream for the right to rip CD’s. On the other hand, if the court determines that ripping CD’s is a protected activity, they can use that as the basis for a judgment that defines iTunes and iPod’s as recording devices subjected to copy controls and royalties.

Either way, they would end up winning…

I have no doubt that this is where this is all heading. Ultimately, the RIAA can’t sue every individual that wants to rip their CD’s. That isn’t a viable approach, and certainly doesn’t work over even the near term. The recording industry has been itching to get a piece of the iPod/portable device revenues, and they see this as a way to force that to happen. I think the only thing staying their hand is concern over consumer blowback negatively affecting their businesses.

And they are close to the point where they don’t even care about that…

Though they want to portray themselves as the guardians of virtue and defenders of the poor artists, I think it is really important to remember that the RIAA is simply a well funded industry advocacy group. Their only interest is supporting the record companies. They are, in a word, lobbyists. And like any other other well funded lobbyists, they are looking to influence the legal system (at your expense) in whatever way suits their client. Logic, morality, justice, civic good – none of those matter to them at all. They want to find a way to require you to not just buy a CD, but to also buy the digital download, or buy the ringtone, etc. They want that to happen not because it’s right or fair, but because their client will get to charge you three times instead of once for the same basic thing.

Litigation on this point is coming. It’s just a matter of time.

The file sharing lawsuits were just a warm up – the real fight is just getting started…

Taking It To The (Digital) Streets…

Share

The internet is at the heart of the current Writers’ Guild strike…

blog-wgae-logo.gifOne of the core issues behind this strike is a demand for participation in the revenue that comes from online distribution of media. Writers currently receive no royalties for shows sold or distributed over the internet, and only a token royalty from the sale of DVD’s. In a world going digital, this isn’t a financially viable arrangement for them, and everyone involved seems to be aware of how critical these issues are to their future.

But this isn’t the only role the internet is playing in this strike…

The Writers’ Guild is using the internet as a tool to get their message out. They understand the value of laying out their case in simple terms, and delivering it directly to the public. They’ve put together the following video to do just that:

This reasoned online approach is an effective addition to traditional simple placards carried on a chanting picket line. And while this particular video speaks to the issues that need to be addressed, other videos are being produced that speak to the more emotional side of this dispute. There is even a series of videos (15 to date) entitled “Speechless” that have been produced in support of the writers. They feature various celebrities in off-beat segments that underscore the role writers play in the industry:

While all of these various videos are good vehicles for the Writers Guild from a PR perspective, they do gloss over many of the details and issues that are a part of this strike to make it more accessible to the general public.

And winning over the public is important in any action like this…

But getting the public on their side isn’t their only goal in all of this. These videos probably play a role maintaining internal cohesiveness as well, taking pressure off some of the union’s own fracture points. (They have some writers making paltry sums while others bring in seven figure incomes, and they are divided East-West between the television and movie industries.)

While I have no doubt the issues and motivations behind producing these videos are complex, the almost viral growth of them on the net makes one thing very clear.

The ‘rules of engagement” between labor and management have changed…

The internet is enabling a new form of labor activism to emerge. It’s a natural progression of what we’ve seen happen in the political and social sphere, with groups like moveon.org and thevanguard.org defining positions and organizing support for various issues they are concerned about.

Unions have fallen way behind in this regard. Our economy isn’t about mass production anymore, and the tools and methods used by unions in the past have limited value in the world they find themselves in today. Just like the industries they represent, they’ll need to learn and adapt – or they will perish.

It appears the Writers Guild is adapting…

Media is at its most powerful when it puts a human face to abstract issues and situations. And technology is the most powerful tool available for delivering that media at a personal level. That’s the combination the Writers Guild has embraced in this strike.

And they are just scratching the surface of what’s possible…

Finally – A Technology Agenda…

Share

Technology issues rarely get respect on the campaign trail…

Despite technology’s critical role in our society, you don’t usually hear candidates talk much about their positions on technology related issues. In a short speech at Google yesterday, Barack Obama did just that. With many candidates that – short of blackberries – are probably pretty technophobic, it is really refreshing to hear someone running for office that seems to understand the bigger digital picture:

As political speeches go, this one was pretty specific. Obama comes down firmly for preserving Network Neutrality and for providing universal broadband coverage – two issues that are very important to me. He also endorses preserving spectrum for non-commercial uses, making government data available online using Open File Formats (a boon to non-Microsoft Linux and Mac users), and creating open forums around pending legislation.

Of everything he mentioned in this speech, perhaps the most interesting is the creation of our first national Chief Technology Officer. We certainly need one. Each division and agency in our government seems to make it’s own technology decisions – many of them very poorly considered. As a national government, we have no cohesive platform or data architecture to build around. There are no clearly defined standards for identity, security, or access. We are running on a set of aging, isolated technologies cut off not just from each other, but from the needs and expectations of the public they are supposed to be supporting.

And the result is a set of poor, inconsistent services…

No business would run itself this way – and neither should our government. As time goes by, addressing this will become increasingly important. A well considered approach to technology could be transformational. Imagine if our government provided standards based access to every service offered online. People would be able to create mash-ups that combined them in logical ways with other services and data, and extend the footprint of these services in ways the government couldn’t do on its own. Even agencies within the government could tie related services from other agencies together, packaging them in less siloed, more consumer friendly ways.

It could be the start of ‘Open Source’ government…

If someone with technical vision and a clear mandate could fill the role of ‘National CTO’, they could open our government up and make it accessible to individuals in ways that the traditional bureaucracy never could. Change at this level could have a positive impact on the entire experience people have when interacting with our government.

I understand that a lot more gets said during a campaign than gets done during an administration, so I am pragmatic about what I think will be accomplished. I also recognize that Network neutrality, preserving public spectrum, and providing universal broadband access probably aren’t defining issues in this election. However, they are important issues, and it’s nice to hear positions on them articulated like this.

We need more elected officials that understand them…

NOTE: Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are co-sponsors of legislation that was introduced in the Senate (by Byron Dorgan, D-S.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine) that requires broadband providers to treat all network traffic equally. It would allow broadband providers to create tiered pricing, but require that there is non-discriminatory access to each tier.