The future of the internet: A virtual counter-revolution | The Economist.
This issue of The Economist contains an excellent overview of the Net Neutrality issue. It would be a great resource for anyone who wants to get up to speed on the issue (or to pass along to friends). They address it primarily from the standpoint of the fragmentation of the Internet, and give current examples like international domain names and closed applications to support their point. They back it up with an oft-forgotten historical point:
Devotees of a unified cyberspace are worried that the online world will soon start looking as it did before the internet took over: a collection of more or less connected proprietary islands reminiscent of AOL and CompuServe.
International examples also show how we approach the issue much differently than the rest of the world.
It is telling that net neutrality has become far more politically controversial in America than it has elsewhere. This is a reflection of the relative lack of competition in America’s broadband market. In Europe and Japan, “open access” rules require network operators to lease parts of their networks to other firms on a wholesale basis, thus boosting competition.
Things close with Zittrain’s argument that a more closed internet might harm innovation.
Should the network become a collection of proprietary islands accessed by devices controlled remotely by their vendors, the internet would lose much of its “generativity”, warns Harvard’s Mr Zittrain.
Props to the Economist for such a clearly written, accessible piece on this important issue.
I can’t begin to say how much I agree with this. Standards and open platforms for online social networking would be huge. The network effect would likely slow a migration down, but I’m glad someone is working on it.
Could open source tools make Facebook the next AOL? – Computerworld.
(0)
On Facebook, Google, and Our Evolving Social Mores Online – John Battelle’s Searchblog.
This is along the same lines of my previous post about the Tweeting CNN editor, but zooms out for a much broader view of the impact of online social networks on our moral frameworks. I have to dig deeper on this one, so I can’t comment here, but hopefully someone finds it interesting.
(0)
Thomas Friedman recently briefly examined the firing of CNN editor Octavia Nasr. He touches on something that I think points out a coming shift in our on and offline social persona — how closely do we have to watch what we say online? Certainly there are limits, but it seems as though skittishness of employers might hinder our ability to express our personal thoughts. Personally, I favor more speech and dialogue. As Friedman states:
What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.
via Op-Ed Columnist – Can We Talk? – NYTimes.com.
I’ll admit to having let my guard down a bit on the privacy front. While I was initially concerned by things like the indexing of Gmail e-mails and putting personal information like my schedule on the web, I’ve since seen that it has some value. Yet, cases like Facebook’s privacy control changes and Apple’s collection of GPS data send me back to skepticism. Why? Because the changes have been made without the consent of users–or more importantly, before the company has earned the trust of their users.
Apple has recently replied to a congressional question about the GPS data collection:
In a 13-page reply to questions posed by Representative Ed Markey from Massachusetts and Congressman Joe Barton from Texas, Apple said it collects GPS data daily from iPhones running OS 3.2 or iOS 4. The phones collect the GPS data and encrypt it before sending it back to Apple every 12 hours via Wi-Fi. Attached to the GPS data is a random identification number generated by the phone every 24 hours. The information is not associated with a particular customer, Apple said. (via Apple lays out location collection policies | ITworld.)
I find Apple’s explanation unconvincing. While the data may be collected in aggregate, there is no way for the customer to opt out. iPhone owners are under contract with AT&T that imposes a heavy termination fee. iPhone owners using older versions of iOS are forced to upgrade their phones to the latest version if they ever need to restore their phone or bring it the store. Thus, Apple has used their position to gather this valulable data on the millions of iPhone owners without their consent or the ability to opt out.
According to the article congressman Markey was pleased with the response, while congressman Barton was less than convinced. I hope they continue to press Apple on this important issue.
