Happy Sysadmin day
Today is System Administrator Appreciation Day.
Check out the official web site. And ThinkGeek has some gift suggestions.
David Canton is a business lawyer and trade-mark agent with a practice focusing on technology issues and technology companies.
Today is System Administrator Appreciation Day.
Check out the official web site. And ThinkGeek has some gift suggestions.
That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.
It reads as follows:
Bill Gates has been quoted as saying: “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.”
To put that in perspective, lets compare some specs. The space shuttles will soon be retired – they were first launched in 1981 – almost 30 years ago.
In 1981 an example of a computer available then was a PDP11. It cost US$110,000, had 192 KB of memory, 5MB disk packs, and the footprint of a large desk.
Today, we buy cellphones for around $200 or so that weigh a few ounces and fit into our pockets that have 500MB (that’s about 2000 times more if my math is correct) of internal memory. You can add perhaps another 16GB (that’s about 20000 times more than the disk pack if my math is correct) of memory by sliding in a microSD card the size of a fingernail. And they include cameras, GPS, touch screens, Intenet access, several radios (voice, data, GPS, Wifi, Bluetooth).
Its hard to imagine what we will have within the next decade or 2.
Michael Geist just launched a new site called Speak Out on Copyright.
Its worth a look by anyone interested in the current copyright consultations. The intro to the site says:
On July 20, 2009, Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore launched the first Canadian public consultation on copyright policy since 2001. The consultation, which runs until September 13, 2009, provides Canadians with an exceptional opportunity to have their voice heard on the future of copyright law in Canada. I launched SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca as a platform to give people information and tools to participate in the consultation. The site includes my short response to the consultation, dozens of posts and videos on Canadian copyright law, and a Take Action page that “highlights the ways individual Canadians can speak out on copyright.
For the London Free Press – July 27, 2009
On July 6, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a number of film studios and television networks of a ruling that allows Cablevision Systems Corp. to provide a new online digital video recorder service.
It works like a typical digital video recorder (DVR) that lets us record and play back TV programs, except that instead of being recorded on a device next to your TV, it would be done on a drive at a Cablevision facility.
The studios and networks argued that Cablevision’s new service violates copyright laws, since the company does not have a licence to copy their programs.
The studios and networks — including Time Warner Inc., News Corp., CBS Corp. and Walt Disney Co. — were successful at the New York federal trial in 2007. But that decision was overturned at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last summer.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals ruling, which states that the new service by Cablevision will not directly infringe the copyrights of the media companies that produce movies and television programs.
In 2006, Cablevision announced plans to offer the new service, called Remote Storage Digital Video Recorder (RS-DVR, which would let viewers record TV programs on the cable operator’s computers instead of a DVR box.
The service saves Cablevision money by not having to pay for the DVR boxes and their installation. Cablevision said the reduction in costs would let them cut prices for the service, leading to more subscribers.
From the perspective of the viewer, the RS-DVR is basically the same as the DVR.
The next logical step would be to record a given program only once for the first person to set it up — then all the customers who “recorded” it could play that same one back. That would avoid recording a particular show once for each customer who wants it, which could be thousands of times. That is getting close to a video-on-demand model that would require cable companies to obtain rights to provide.
The current ruling, however, requires cable operators to create recordings for each user of the service. This requires more storage space and bandwidth than if one could simply watch a program someone else already saved.
Various cable companies, such as Comcast and Time Warner, say they would introduce a similar service if the Cablevision service was found to be legal.
The top court’s refusal to hear this appeal has set the stage for wider adoption of remote DVR services.
One studio and network concern is people tend to skip commercials when watching recorded programs. Though DVR viewers watch less than half the commercials that non-DVR viewers, DVR viewers watch more television.
Cablevision has expressed a willingness to work with studios and networks “to give our customers what they want — full DVR functionality through existing digital set-top boxes — and at the same time, deliver real benefits to advertisers.”
A client passed this along to post. They started to receive statements via email. The pdf statements had the account numbers blocked, but all the financial info was there.
The client emailed the financial institution to indicate its displeasure, saying that email was not a secure channel, the statements contain sensitive business information, and they were not given an opportunity to opt in or out.
The reply was rather ironic: A return email saying they required more information to be able to assist, but since email is not a secure channel, the client must call them.
Wired Gadget Lab has an article entitled Robo-Ethicists Want to Revamp Asimov’s 3 Laws. Seems that some think that Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are too simplistic. Those 3 laws say:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The article starts by saying:
“Two years ago, a military robot used in the South African army killed nine soldiers after a malfunction. Earlier this year, a Swedish factory was fined after a robot machine injured one of the workers (though part of the blame was assigned to the worker). Robots have been found guilty of other smaller offenses such as an incorrectly responding to a request.
So how do you prevent problems like this from happening? Stop making psychopathic robots, say robot experts.
“If you build artificial intelligence but don’t think about its moral sense or create a conscious sense that feels regret for doing something wrong, then technically it is a psychopath,” says Josh Hall, a scientist who wrote the book Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of a Machine.”
The article refers to a paper entitled Toward the Human-Robot Co-Existance Society: On Safety Intelligence for Next Generation Robots recently published in the International Journal of Social Robotics.
Take a look at the article to see what they have in mind – after all, we need to get this sorted out before we have a Cylon problem.
The Federal government has just launched public consultations intended to lead to a new copyright reform bill. The last few attempts to revise copyright law have not become law – but have been highly controversial. This is an important topic that affects things we do every day. The difficult part is striking the right balance between the entertainment industry desire to charge for and control everything, and the consumer expectation of getting everything free all the time. Past efforts have not accomplished that balance, and in some ways took a step backwards by being stuck in a digital time warp.
These consultations will be over quickly – so if you want your position heard - now’s the time.
See the government’s Copyright Consultations web site for more details. Also keep an eye on Michael Geist’s site for his thoughts as this unfolds.
For the London Free Press – July 20, 2009
No one enjoys long lines at the airport, so when Verified Identity Pass Inc, introduced a service called Clear that promised to shorten delays for frequent business flyers, it seemed like a good idea.
But now that the service has ended — leaving the fate of all that personal information up in the air — many are not so sure.
Basically, Clear subscribers paid $199 US a year to use express security lanes at 20 American airports.
Subscribers had to give the company a great deal of highly sensitive personal information. Iris patterns, fingerprints, social insurance numbers, and other data to receive a Clear pass. The company had 260,000 registered users.
For various reasons — including at one point losing a laptop containing unencrypted information on thousands of customers — Clear had a difficult time becoming profitable. On June 22, the company closed shop for financial reasons.
Initial customer outrage related to whether or not subscriber fees would be refunded, especially considering that Clear was recently being advertised as a great Father’s Day gift idea.
But once Clear stated that due to its financial situation it would not be offering refunds, the focus quickly shifted.
What was to be done with all the sensitive information which Clear no longer had any use for?
On the open market, sensitive personal information is very valuable. For this reason, it is very tempting for a business in Clear’s position, or its creditors, to sell the information to recoup their losses.
This is less than attractive to those who now have their sensitive data hanging in limbo.
Many privacy advocates would simply suggest all sensitive data be destroyed in these cases.
However, this has to be weighed against the rights of creditors.
In a letter to members, Clear stated it was wiping all customer information from records contained at individual airports.
It also assured members it would delete all of the data from their main database if they were unable to provide it to a new entity providing a similar service.
That philosophy fits with general privacy principles that say personal information should only be used for the purpose it was collected, absent specific individual consent.
While there are difficulties with the Canadian PIPEDA legislation in this regard, privacy principles generally say that a business can transfer the personal information of its customers to a buyer of its assets, so long as the privacy obligations go with it. They can’t transfer it to others for different purposes.
It was fortunate that the company holding the information didn’t simply walk away from its equipment, leaving the personal information unprotected.
Because it is so valuable, the temptation is for creditors to make other uses of personal information, or to sell it to others.
Michael has a post summarizing his thoughts on the hearings.
I follow this subject from a distance out of interest – but it strikes me that one of the reasons we get such varied views and suspicions is that the facts are not always clear. Of course, there will always be differences of opinion between those espousing the fundamental theoretical philosophies of the internet, and the commercial interests of those that actually make the investments and provide connectivity. But having an open, factual dialogue goes a long way to reach common ground. Hopefully the hearings gave the CRTC what they need to do that.
That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.
It reads as follows:
Author and marketing guru Seth Godin has a post today on his blog that rings true for anyone selling anything – including lawyers.
He talks about products where a buyer’s perception of them may not be the reality – leading to frustration after the product is purchased.
His conclusion:
“There are lots of things you can do to make the sale. They often are precisely the opposite of what you should do to generate word of mouth. I know, you can’t have word of mouth unless you have a sale, but a sale that leads to pain is hardly worth it.
My rule of thumb is this: every person you turn away because your product or service isn’t right for them turns into three great customers down the road. Every bad sale costs you five.”
Unless otherwise stated, all original material created by David Canton included in this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
