While Apple is changing how you interact with the Internet, so is Google

While this announcement is anything as sexy as the new iPad, it is also a big development: Google Proposes to Extend DNS Protocol, Optimize Speed of Browsing.

Google and these other DNS providers are essentially changing the way the Internet will work. If this goes ahead, these DNS providers will be taking over or at least dramatically shaping the structure of the Internet. The way it is presented, the DNS providers will use part of your IP address to determine where to send your request in order to speed up your request. Right now if I want to go and browse ACMEJAPAN.COM, my DNS servers — in this case, the ones provided by Google — will say: oh, ACMEJAPAN.COM, that is located at IP address a.b.c.d. It should do this regardless of where I am connected. Knowing a.b.c.d, my ISP will (at least partially) route my request to IP address a.b.c.d. However, if  a.b.c.d points to a web server in Japan and my laptop is connected to an ISP in Canada, it’s going to take awhile (relatively speaking) for my request to get to Japan and back. What Google is proposing is this: if ACMEJAPAN.COM also has web servers in a location closer to me (say at w.x.y.z), then it will tell me that instead and as a result my request and response will be quicker.

It sounds all good, but it also means that Google DNS (and others) have more control over directing traffic around the Internet. That’s the part that concerns me. Those DNS providers are going to be actively shaping the flow of Internet traffic. And that is interesting.  I expect to see alot more coming out of this development.

Thoughts on the iPad

Since the NYTimes.com has this: The Blogosphere Reacts to the Apple iPad, I thought: hey, I am part of the blogosphere, so I should react too! 🙂

  • The response in this article is different than what I have been seeing. One difference: in the article, people have access to the iPad. Perhaps this will make people more enthusiastic once they get it.
  • Overall, it doesn’t have the same Wow factor for me that other apple technology had. I remember the first iMac, iPod and others and thinking how special they were. This doesn’t seem that way. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can’t help.
  • In some ways, I am seeing people argue for it the same way I see people argue for Google Wave. If you have to argue that strongly in favour of something, that is a bad sign. It should be obvious to people why they want it. I don’t see that for the iPad.
  • It does remind me of a big iPhone / iTouch. That’s not too surprising: that is a classic design. But I would have been more impressed if they had done something more innovative in the overall physical form. Many times that alone gave other i devices their wow factor. Nothing about the iPad’s overall physical design excites me. It reminds me more of a new machine.
  • The iPad could go the way of the Air computer. A colleague of mine said this and I think there is a possibility this is true. There could be a minority of people who get it, but the vast majority may stick with other devices.
  • The size is relevant. I find I fuss alot with my Touch when I surf the web. With the iPad, there will be less of that.
  • I think it will hurt the Kindle, but how much remains to be seen. I think the iPhone is superior to most Blackberries as devices, but what makes the Blackberry powerful is the deep integration with backend systems. The Kindle’s deep connection to Amazon could help it achieve the same thing.
  • I know lots of people are joking about the name, but I think it is a good name. It is very close to iPod, and it is related to IBM’s ThinkPad.
  • People are complaining about its lack of features, for good reason, but I think the big thing that is going to happen is the unleashing of application developers on that platform. For that’s what the iPad is: a newer/better platform for developers. I expect the apps alone will eventually drive people to get one. People won’t get one to replace their other devices. They will get it because it has apps that you can’t get anywhere else.
  • iPad apps could allow Apple devices to get into businesses where they could never get in before. They could start appearing everywhere instead of a sheet of paper. There are already tons of big screen TVs everywhere in businesses now. I could see the same thing with iPads.
  • iPads are going to change the nature of mobile devices. Whoever makes the technology for Apple will eventually make it for HTC and others.
  • iPads could be the end of cellphones, even smart phones. If I have a bluetooth headset and a 3G iPad, the reason to have a phone diminishes greatly.
  • If I were a print publisher, I would be excited and nervous. Excited because I believe Apple will give them a lifeline, a rope, so to speak. And nervous because that rope might be used to tie them to Apple, just like the music industry is. It was interesting to see the emphasis of print media at the Apple demo. That will be the direction for 2010, but I think the apps will take over and take it in unexpected directions.
  • I like the lack of a keyboard. Honestly, keyboards and mice are very limited ways to interact with computers. Jobs recognized that with the first iPod and he has been pushing that as he goes forward. But I also think we need richer ways to interact with the computer. The iPad may give that to us.
  • I think the iPad will evolve to become a much more impressive platform. This is just the beginning.

“Winners” in politics

I wrote about “winners” in politics the other night: people who run only when they are confident they will win. There is another angle to this. Winners also will do what it take to win, even what it takes is outrageous or worse. In talking about Harold Ford at The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about such winner, people like John Malcolm Patterson, who

 ‘…defeated Wallace, and embraced the murderous (Ku Klux) Klan, (and who also!) backed Barack Obama for president in 2008, and said of his segregationist days:

“If you didn’t do that you wouldn’t get elected. You might as well go home and forget it.” Even after his election, the issue constrained him. “The law required that the schools be segregated,” Patterson says. “And the legislature was not about to change the law. If I had attempted to force some issue myself, the legislature might well have impeached me. Timing is everything. And the timing was not right to do anything about segregation.”

This is not to say that Patterson doesn’t regret the way he handled segregation, particularly the issue of voting rights. “We were denying black people all over the state, highly qualified folk, the right to vote,” Patterson says. “You’d see these country guys on these voting registration boards. They’d call in some guy with a doctorate from Columbia University teaching at Tuskegee and ask him questions about the constitution and turn him down because they weren’t satisfactory. This was ridiculous. It was outrageous.”‘

Patterson was a “winner”. As Julius Caesar says in Shakespeare’s play, such men, with lean and hungry looks, think too much and are dangerous. They are “winners”.

Big upcoming changes in Afghanistan

According to the Globe and Mail, Talks with Taliban gain traction in plan for Afghan peace. Some signifigant points:

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the senior NATO commander in the 42-nation Afghan mission, said in an interview with the Financial Times. “I believe that a
political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it’s the right outcome.”

By saying that Taliban leaders could be included in a future Afghan government and suggesting that Afghans should “extend olive branches” to the insurgents, Gen. McChrystal has gone further than any previous U.S. commander.

Also, this

At a meeting in Istanbul yesterday ahead of the London conference, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told reporters that he wants to begin negotiations with the more moderate of the several groups usually classified as “Taliban.”

“I will be making a statement at the conference in London to the effect of removing Taliban names from the United Nations sanctions list,” Mr. Karzai said.

This is all very big and very signfigant for the future of NATO in that country. Dividing “The Taliban” is likely the best way to achieve stability in Afghanistan and likely the best way to deal with al-Qaeda there.

The power of Anna Netrebko

This time in a more challenging piece than “O mio babbino caro”. Here she performs Elettra’s Aria “D’Oreste, d’Aiace” from Mozart’s “Idomeneo, Re di Creta”. I think she performs it very well.  It’s a powerful aria, powerfully sung.

YouTube – Anna Netrebko Mozart – Idomeneo – D’oreste, D’ajace, Mozart

I mention power because I actually learned something from the comments of Youtube. The microphone in front of her is apparently not for projection, but for recording (you see a few of them onstage). Compare it with this video, with her performing with Andrea Bocelli.

In this video –not very well recorded — they are using amplification microphones. Now skip ahead to around the 2:44 minute mark and note how close he is to the mic as compared to her. In order for him to project over the overall sound, he has to be on top of the mic. Her? Not so much. If anything, if she was that close, she might overwhelm the overall sound. Power.

(This is not a knock against Bocelli, who has a fine voice. But he appears tense and struggling at this point, while she opens up her arms. Indeed, towards the end she is taking his hand, almost to lend support to the big finish to a difficult piece to sing.)

Obama in 2006

In this Harper’s article, Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine—By Ken Silverstein, is a look at the upcoming Barack Obama, who is  “Already considered a potential vice-presidential nominee in 2008”. Ha!

It’s a good article, mostly focused on lobbyists and their relationship with politicians. However, one quote that jumped out at me was this:

Obama said that the “blogger community,” which by now is shorthand for liberal Democrats, gets frustrated with him because they think he’s too willing to compromise with Republicans. “My argument,” he says, “is that a polarized electorate plays to the advantage of those who want to dismantle government. Karl Rove can afford to win with 51 percent of the vote. They’re not trying to reform health care. They are content with an electorate that is cynical about government. Progressives have a harder job. They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals.”

You can see Obama’s thinking about Health Care Reform here, even if it is something that so many progressive bloggers object to. That asymetry is unfair and frustrating to the left in the U.S. Howevre, once those bold proposals are set in place, they gain an inertia all of their own and the asymetry shifts in favour of progressives. (Ask conservatives that try to dismantle New Deal programs.)

(And yes I realize that the blogger community is more than just liberal Democrats….hey, this was written ages ago. :))

On the beginning of the end of the Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin and the return of the “winners”

Whenever a party loses badly, as the GOP did recently, you get a withdrawal of mainstream participants, leaving a vacuum that can be filled by others. On the other side, you get people focused on those that fill the vacuum, as the Dems have. But really, that is a temporary state, until the side now in power starts to look weak. As the Dems are currently looking. Then you get something like this, G.O.P. Seeks to Widen Field of Play in Fall Elections – NYTimes.com, where the mainstream participants — in this case, from the GOP — start to reengage.

How you see this depends on your affiliation. Regardless, the idea that the the Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin followers were ever going to lead the GOP was not very likely. Instead, it’s going to be people like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Mike Pense in Indiana who will become the next leaders. I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. It’s just the way it is.

Perhaps the Tea Partiers and the Sarah Palin followers will feel that they paved the way for these new leaders. Whether that is true can be determined by how much Senators like Scott Brown listen to them. My belief is the answer is: not much. And that too is just the way it is.

Now we will see the “winners” return. Winners only play when they can win. For them, it’s not about participating so much as it is about winning.

The resurgence of the Paul Simon Sound

I’ve been hearing Paul Simon everywhere lately in the sound of new musicians. This post over at LETTER TO JANE, on Vampire Weekend’s “Giant”,  highlights its appearance in that song. And a good friend sent me Jeremy Fisher’s “Scar That Never Heals” on blip.fm and I can’t help but think of “Cecilia” and “Me and Julio Down by the School Yard” when I listen to it.

Now obviously Paul Simon is still alive and still making great music. But it is great to see newer musicians take that sound and use it too.

What I love about Gianni Schicchi

As characters go, Gianni Schicchi is remarkable. Not only does he appear in a Canto (XXX) of Dante’s Inferno, but he is also the subject of a one act opera by the great composer, Giacomo Puccini. Not bad for a minor crook of a man. Other than Othello, not many characters can claim such an honor.

The opera contains one of the most beautiful arias I know, “O mio babbino caro” (Oh, my dear papa).

The night before my daughter was born, I went to see Gianni Schicchi. After, when she was born, I used to hum “O mio babbino caro” to her to help her fall asleep.

One of my favourite sopranos is Anna Netrebko, and she sings “O mio babbino caro” here:

China vs the West: an economic experiment

It’s not often you see economic idea laboratory tested, so to speak, but as Matthew Yglesias shows, that’s exactly what we have seen in comparing the West’s approach to the Great Recession as opposed to Chin’a approach. As he points out:

When the world entered a major downturn, China applied major stimulus. Really across the board stuff. …The government spent money, they did credit easing, they stimulated consumer demand (”retail sales rose 16.9 percent in 2009″), they did infrastructure, they did exchange rate policy, they did a lot. People warned that all this stimulus might create inflation, but China kept doing it anyway. Now, GDP growth is back on track and there’s actual evidence of inflation happening so they’re looking to pivot. Policymakers in the developed world—especially Europe—have, by contrast, spent much of the past twelve months doing the equivalent of worrying about a flood while standing in a burning house.

As a result, China’s ecomomy is taking off and their Central Bank is worried about inflation. Meanwhile, in the West, the central banks act like they are worried about inflation, but without the economic growth to cause inflation, I am not sure what they are worried about. It is the rest of us in the West who are worried, and it’s not about inflation.

I.F. Stone, the UK Guardian and the future of journalism

When I think of print journalism, I think of journalists working the phones and going to press conferences to gather news. However, that is not the only way to do it. Indeed, the famed journalist I.F. Stone had a different yet very successful way of working. His “journalistic work drew heavily on obscure documents from the public domain; some of his best scoops were discovered by peering through the voluminous official records generated by the government”. It looks like the Guardian is supporting something along similar lines as it launches a search engine for government data. As the article in the link states:

The UK Guardian, ostensibly a newspaper but a major proponent for opening data held by governments to use by outside software developers, has launched some software of its own: a search engine that unearths datasets and pathways to data sets provided by governments around the world. World Government Data Search is now live.

In effect, The Guardian is enabling the new generations of I.F. Stones to muckrake and report on what is happening in the government. We are going back to the future.

Paul Volcker and the return of Glass Steagall as part of Obama’s long term plan

Whatever you think of President Obama’s policies, one thing to note about him is that he plans long term. When he brought Paul Volcker onto his team, I first wondered if it was just window dressing. Volcker all but dropped off the radar until recently, when he has been saying scathing things about the big banks. Now there’s this: Obama to Propose New Limits on Banks – WSJ.com. In this article, the WSJ says that…

“Mr. Obama is also expected to endorse, for the first time publicly, measures pushed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which would place restrictions on the proprietary trading done by commercial banks, essentially limiting the way banks bet with their own capital. Administration officials say they want to place “firewalls” between different divisions of financial companies to ensure banks don’t indirectly subsidize “speculative” trading through other subsidiaries that hold federally insured deposits.”

Why does any of this have to do with the long term? This could have been done anytime in the last year. Instead, Obama shored up the banks and let them more or less do what they wanted. And what did they do? They went on to rake in some serious profits and pay out some huge bonuses, much to the dismay of Obama’s supporters. However, Obama in the short term has focused on the more difficult task, which was Health Care Reform, while cajoling the banks to show some restraint (which they did not).  Once that is settled, one way or another, Obama will pivot towards bank reform, which is what he appears to be doing now. Just in time for the 2010 elections. Which is the plan.

After that, the plan will be to work on climate change, propose improvement to health care reform,  complete the draw down of forces in Irag and Afghanistan, and get the economy in the best shape it can be for the U.S. presidential election. That’s the long term plan. Watch.

Is your password really “123456”?! For alot of people, it is. Here’s why you need to change it

I used to maintain the directory of userids on a bunch of mainframes when passwords were not encrypted. What always shocked me was how trivial passwords were. Every winter, there would be lots of passwords of “winter”. When Major League Baseball started, there were lots of passwords like “Bluejays” or “Yankees”. Anyone intent on hacking into these accounts could have. (Part of our job was to prevent people from doing just that.)

Flash forward decades later, and it still seems that Simple Passwords Remain Popular, Despite Risk of Hacking according to the  NYTimes.com. And what is one of the common passwords? “123456”. Really!

Check this article. See why this is a bad idea. Then change your password. Please. For all our sakes.

The latest on Haiti from today’s teleconference by Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

…can be found here: Transcript: Teleconference on Haiti Earthquake on January 18, 2010 | Doctors Without Borders.

Good news: they have treated hundreds of patients already. Bad news: they have been hampered by the logistics of others, as you can see in the transcript. It looks like this logistical roadblock has been surmounted. Let’s see.

It’s a good transcript with lots of detail. Highly recommended.

Why helping in disasters like Haiti is harder than you might think

You might think that with all these countries coming to Haiti’s rescue, everything should be fixed in no time. However, delivering aid and assistance to a nation in a disaster is terribly difficult, no matter what, as Michael Keizer points out in this article: Logistics questions around the Haiti earthquake.

You will likely hear people question why isn’t aid getting to people quickly enough. Read this article and you will know why.

Jaron Lanier needs someone else to promote his new book, “You are Not A Gadget”

As he lamely states in this article in WSJ.com, you might know know him as

‘the “father of Virtual Reality technology.” In the 1980s and 1990s, I was a young computer scientist and entrepreneur working on how to apply virtual reality to things like surgical simulation’

I did know him from his work then, and his work was impressive. Now he has a new book to promote, titled “You are Not A Gadget”, and it seems less than impressive. In the WSJ article, he states, “Here’s one problem with digital collectivism: We shouldn’t want the whole world to take on the quality of having been designed by a committee. When you have everyone collaborate on everything, you generate a dull, average outcome in all things. You don’t get innovation.” and “There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true.”. Perhaps he hangs out at a different part of the Web than I do, but those statements are false.  Where is “everyone” collaborating on “everything”? And who is stating “collectives make the best stuff”? Instead, what we are just as likely to see is individuals or small teams starting things and then others contribute feedback, ideas, and criticisms. Likewise, we also see companies and organizations spending less time dictating to people how to use technology and more time fostering collaboration and sharing with their technology.

Lanier sets up other straw men in this article, too, like this one: “If you suggested that, say, Google, Apple and Microsoft should be merged so that all their engineers would be aggregated into a giant wiki-like project—well you’d be laughed out of Silicon Valley so fast you wouldn’t have time to tweet about it.” I mean, who in their right mind would suggest that? What companies like Google are doing, though,  is pushing out technologies and ideas — like Google Wave — faster to their clients and users and getting their feedback to build better services.

To sume it up, the entire article is poor. Sadly, it gets worse. Over here in the NYTimes is this: “In the book Mr. Lanier offers some general proposals for helping content providers, like the establishment of a universal system for micropayments administered by the government. He’d be glad to see the system run privately, he told me, but there are obstacles to PayPal or anyone else establishing a universal system, so it needs to be a government function akin to maintaining paper currency.” Again, who honestly can imagine this being an idea that is likely to be implemented? It sounds like something from a Science Fiction novel, not a serious idea.  Even the idea of micropayments itself is old and terrible. In places where there are micropayments (e.g. costs / text message), both people and companies look for ways to get rid of them, either by offering “unlimited” plans or making them “free”. Technical people seem to like micropayments: I recall Nathan Myhrvold was a fan of them at one point, too. But to me they are just an annoyance and a source of contention between a business and their customers, and when I see technical people promoting them, I have a hard time taking their ideas seriously.

Perhaps Lanier’s book is excellent, and he is just doing a poor job of promoting it. When I came across Lanier and his ideas in the 80s, he appeared to be a brilliant guy. I hope that is still the case and his new book illustrates that. But these interviews are not looking promising.

Superb (and upsetting) photojournalism of the Haitian Earthquake…

…can be found at the Lens Blog on the NYTimes.com. If The Lede is a great news blog, then The Lens is its photojournalism counterpart. For this posting, On Assignment: Prayers in the Dark – Lens Blog – NYTimes.com, not only can you see the photo essay, but there is an interview with the photographer that took the photos.

Like I said, though, it is upsetting to see so many people dead, including small children. Be forewarned.

More on the architecture of despair

Why do people in rich countries have a much much better chance of surviving earthquakes than people in poor countries? According to this article in  the latimes.com, it’s enforcement of building codes. It’s not enough to have building codes, as they had in Turkey, they need to be enforced. You can argue that poor countries can’t stop squatters and slum dwellers from building substandard houses, but you can’t argue that schools and other public buildings and private buildings can’t be made up to code.

Otherwise these structures are death traps.

mGive: one way how the Red Cross and others are raising money for Haiti using mobile devices

One of the remarkable things about the disaster relief efforts for victims of the Haitian earthquake has been the raising of money via mobile phones and other devices via texting. It’s fast, easy to do, easy to communicate, and as we have seen already, very effective. If you want to know more about this and how your organization might use this, you want to check out the web site for mGive. mGive provides the service that allows this to happen. From what I can tell on the site, the service is remarkable and worth checking out.

Not too long ago, the way that organizations would gather funds quickly like this would be via banks. I expect more people to raise funds this way soon.

Why is Haiti so poor?

The blog Marginal Revolution asks the question and provides some possible answers.  But don’t just read the post: read the comments. The comments provide alot more ideas on the difficulties that Haiti has faced over the centuries, and I thought they were better than the original post.

As for Haiti, the saying “if it’s not one thing, it’s another” certainly applies to this country and the people who live there. 

Haiti and the architecture of despair

Girl crying in front of a building after the January 2009 Earthquake
Girl crying in front of a building after the January 2010 Earthquake

Among the many good articles the NYTimes has on Haiti is this one: Flawed Building Likely a Big Element – NYTimes.com. One of the likely reasons that there will be so many deaths in Haiti will have to do with the architecture of their buildings. The quality of the buildings are constrained by the  cost and availability of materials, and as a result, the buildings are not made to withstand such an earthquake. Not only that, but because they may have been designed to withstand hurricanes by using concrete roofs, that may have also contributed to more deaths.

(Image Newscom/PTSPhoto from TPM)

A good group to support in their efforts in Haiti: Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Doctors Without Borders /Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) are a world renowned group working worldwide to provide humanitarian assistance, including Haiti. Even better, they are already in Haiti, which means they can provide assistance as fast as anyone looking for your support in helping Haitians. Based on reports, with the damage that has occurred to hospitals, they are going to need help.

You can find out more about them at the tumblr site I linked to.

And more importantly, you can donate here: https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=197&hbc=1&source=ADQ1001E1D01

My tips for dealing with procrastination

I was thinking about this this morning as I struggled to get started on something. Here’s some notes on this

  • If you can’t get going on the thing you should be doing, get started on something else. Something you are interested in. Even better if it is something you need to do as well. At least this will get your started and give you momentum. After you have that momentum, you might find that you have enough momentum to move over and start working on the thing you should be doing.
  • Are you tired/hungry/thirty? Sometimes taking care of the basic needs will help get you motivated enough to get started.
  • Take the five minute approach. Say: I am going to work on this for five minutes, then stop. It’s hard to say: I can’t spare five minutes. I find once I do that, it helps me to get going.

Posted via email from Bernie Michalik’s posterous site

More on racism and Avatar

Warning: Avatar spoilers!

It appears that this idea is getting more consideration, Some see racist theme in alien adventure ‘Avatar’ – Yahoo! News. I leave it to you to make your own judgment. I am surprised by comments like this, though:

“Avatar” is being criticized by a small but vocal group of people who allege it contains racist themes — the white hero once again saving the primitive natives.

This comment itself seems wrong to me, since I don’t see anywhere where the Na’vi are “primitive”. If anything, Cameron suggests they are superior to the humans. I also don’t see him “saving” the Na’vi: indeed, at the end, his life is saved by them. There is the idea of the outsider saving the community, but that theme can be seen in many films. But more than that, the forces that rise up to defeat the human military seemed to be so much more than just the human in the mix.

Maybe I am naive, but I thought “Avatar” is richer and more complex than how it is portrayed here.

How to think about privacy: my rough notes after reading Mark Zuckerberg say The Age of Privacy is Over

More and more I hear: privacy is dead, over, finished. Case in point: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over. But is it true? If I think about the arguments for privacy being over, or the arguments against privacy, I get something like this:

Privacy is over because people share so much now: it is true, people do share alot more. But while people do share much more, they may also be sharing more selectively. For example, I find that I share alot more information via the various social media available (e,g, blogging, Facebook), but I am also aware of what I do share and where I share it. For instance, I assume everyone can and might read my blog and as a result, I am very selective of what I share there. Unlike Facebook, there is little personal information there. I do (or did) share more information with family and friends on Facebook. However, when I first used Facebook, the understanding I had — supported by Facebook — was that I would have much more control over who could see my information. However, it appears Facebook is reneging on that understanding. As a result, I am sharing less information on Facebook, and I am planning to share less there, and I am encouraging everyone to be mindful and selective of what they share there. I still like sharing information with people using technology, and there are alot of different sites and tools that allow me to do that and I will continue to do that, but I will strive to do it on my own terms.

This not just true for me and my generation, but younger people as well. When I see teens (like my own) sharing information, they often do it cryptically. (And not just teens.) They may do this for exclusive reasons, but they may also do it in order to maintain privacy. They are exerting their rights to control who gets to see information about them. Just like I do and others do with the privacy controls that they have available to them. People like and need privacy.

Another mistake people make is assuming that behaviors that were once private but no longer are therefore equals/means privacy is dead. It is more likely the case that what was once considered shameful or embarrassing or otherwise detrimental to a person now no longer is. I think sexting is a terrible idea, but if enough young people do it, people will eventually shrug, they way they now shrug at ads for birth control or topless beaches. It won’t be that people don’t value privacy: it will just mean that they don’t think such things needs to be private any longer, and dinosaurs like me can complain all they want about sexting because let’s face it, no one wants to see me with no clothes on anyway. 🙂 (No doubt they will also poke fun at me for paying for music on iTunes, too.)

Privacy is over because technology deprives you of it: why is this true? People do put their privacy at risk by adopting new technologies that they can’t/don’t understand or control. However, they make a deal, explicitly or implicitly, with the organizations that they are sharing that information with, be it a business, the government, or some other organization. If customers think that the banks cannot protect their financial privacy, they are going to find other ways to do financial transactions. Indeed, the offering of enhanced privacy becomes a valuable commodity, and companies that offer it will have a competitive advantage. Likewise, if citizens think that the government cannot protect there personal privacy, they are either going to elect a new government or find ways to not share information with the government. Right now criminals do this as a matter of course. However, if people mistrust their government and feel there privacy is being compromised, everyone may do it as a matter of course.

And if they can’t come to an agreeable arrangement with newer technologies that threaten to take away privacy, people will adopt a number of stances to deal with that. One is to hide your identity. People do this often now. Indeed, most people participating in social media use handles without photos instead of using their real name and image. Another way is to adopt proxies of some sort. Any networking technologies — which will more and more come to mean all technology — are open to the use of proxies. If privacy becomes scarce, than proxies will become valuable.

Finally, people will just avoid, not use or misuse technologies that try to rob them of their privacy. It will be a struggle at first, but privacy is an elemental need of people.

Why do you need privacy? You must have something to hide. That may be true, but anyone who thinks that this is all that privacy is about has a limited understanding of the value of privacy. Privacy is not hiding something you have done wrong. Privacy is about controlling your life on your terms. Privacy is about having sovereignty over your life and what you do with it. To illustrate this, let’s take some simple examples.

You need privacy to control your financial affairs: in the course of your life you have to share financial information about yourself with others (e.g., the government, the bank, your employer). However, in a progressive society, it is in your best interests and the society’s best interest to limit how much of that information you share. If you were not able to keep this information private, than in the worst case, criminals would know that you have valuable property, and they may decide to rob you. If you did not have alot of valuable property, people might discriminate against you based on that fact. (Indeed, that happens now to people whose appearance discloses this fact). And regardless of your financial standing, full disclosure of your financial affairs puts you at a disadvantage in all sorts of business dealings and allows you to be taken advantage of. If you can’t mind your own business, others will do it at your loss.

You need privacy to control your identity: If you are not able to keep things like passwords or other information about yourself private, people could find out this information and either use it against you, or they could engage in identity theft and pass themselves off as you. People can also take information about you and by putting it out of context, use it against you to your disadvantage.

You need privacy to escape social norms: Other than a very limited number of people, most people would not want to have their lives filmed and on display 24 hours a day. For it is not just being on display: it is being judged and acted upon based on what you display. You might have a position in society that expects you to behave a certain way in public. (And it could be as simple as being well groomed, conservative and exceedingly polite.) But when you in your own home, you might want to give that up and be another way, even if that other way is relaxed. Privacy allows you to do that. Maybe you want to wear the same sweatpants from Friday night to Monday morning. Maybe you want to dance around in (what to you is) an embarrassing way to some music few people like. Maybe you want to clean your house in the nude! Whatever the behavior is, privacy allows you to do that.

You need privacy to negotiate difficult situations: Likewise, let’s say there was a disagreement in your family, and some people unfairly insist you do not speak to others in your family. You are caught in the middle of an unfair dispute, and you hope to resolve it by talking to both sides. Privacy allows you to do that. Indeed, to be effective in negotiations, privacy is essential.

You need privacy to prevent or reduce prejudice and discrimination: As a young adult, let’s say your friend posts images of you and your friends out drinking and having fun. They post them on Facebook, but just to your friends, because they don’t want everyone to see them. In other words, they want some degree of privacy regarding this.  However, one of your friends is related to someone who works for the new company you want to work for, and in doing a search on Facebook, is able to see you out partying. Now, you may be a very responsible individual at work, but this person assumes the worst about you because of these pictures and screens you out of the position. This is not really fair, but because of a lack of privacy, you are stuck.

Likewise, let’s say you are socially conservative and you are a strong supporter of right wing parties in the country you live in. You join some groups on Facebook and you express your political opinions there. As it turns out, the new position you want to go work for in your company is managed by someone whose political views are the direct opposite of yours. That person does a search for you in Google and sees some of the things that you have been saying in the Facebook groups and then finds another reason not to take you on in that role, even though you were a very strong candidate.

You need privacy to express yourself fully:
this is again related to norms. Let’s say you wanted to create something that is not harmful, but would be disapproved of by people you normally want to associate with. Maybe you belong to a religious family, but you want to study art and eventually draw nudes. Maybe you want to learn how to become a lawyer, even though your family hates lawyers. And maybe you fell in love with someone who makes you feel more alive than you ever felt before, but you feel constrained from being public with showing this feeling due to censure from others. Privacy again comes to the rescue.

Privacy supports greater equality and greater freedom:
In societies where there is a political imbalance, and one side has power over another and lords it over them, privacy can help restore balance. If one sides tries to unfairly prevent the other from seeking a better education or a better deal or a fairer distribution of power, privacy can provide the cover needed to allow change to occur.

Privacy can be abused, too. People can commit crimes and hypocritically treat people badly away from others. But to throw out privacy because of these things is to throw out the baby to get rid of the bath water. Likewise, people can say giving up privacy can be worth it in order to gain all these new technologies or ways of doing things. But I think we can have both the new things and privacy.

Anyway, if you’ve read to here, thanks. There are, without a doubt, better sources on privacy that will argue a much better case for it than what I have done here. If you know of them, please comment here. But even with my limited arguments, I hope you will think about why privacy is important and why self serving people like Mark Zuckerberg is wrong when he argues that privacy is over. I like Facebook, and I would be happy for it to succeed. But it should do so and respect — and that is the key word: respect — people’s wishes and need or privacy.