The Professor's Notes

IT was brought to my attention, as we prepare for tonight’s podcast, Real Tech for Real People episode 47, that Flickr has changed they way you can link/embed photographs.  In the past, you could just include a link to the image–and that was it.  They now are requiring that you use their “share” feature.

So does this mean that Flickr is as bad as Facebook, running rough-shod over our rights with our own photographs?

I don’t think so, and let me explain why.  In the case of Facebook, they (the Facebook Machine) declared that all our Photos belong to Them (and us.)  Actually, the Flickr action is meant to ensure that all my photos remain my photos.  If I take a photograph, and I am willing to show it to the world, then I don’t mind you sharing it (perhaps) but only if you keep my credit attached.  People have been going around, linking to others photographs without linking back to the original, or to Flickr.

That is changed.  Now you must provide a way to link back.

To demonstrate, I have included one of my photos taken using the iPhone in the local Walmart.  As you (most likely) know, I am a Supply Chain and Operations Management professor. One of the things I teach is “service” and facility layout and design.  This photograph shows how our local Wal*Mart positioned their inventory in the floorspace prior to stocking–blocking access to much of the store (forcing you to walk around) and in one case, keeping you from purchasing their more expensive (and most likely higher margin) electric razors.

*sigh*

The Razors

I am a fan of the SyFy show Warehouse 13, and in a recent episode it was noted that the younger male lead always throws “rock” when playing “Rock Paper Scissors.”  So, when I found this site that has an in-depth analysis of strategies to win at the game, I was interested.

One of the interesting points (and relevant to Warehouse 13)  is that males tend to throw “Rock” first.

Go visit the site, and read–it’s worth you time–especially if you use Rock-Paper-Scissors to decide who gets to shoot the bad guys first.

A while back I wrote comparing tech to religion, focusing on what was important–the spirit or the flesh (okay, the OS or the hardware…).

Recently a writer at the Atlantic Monthly has done the same thing, exploring the 4 myths around religion, and discussing the impact the “Antenna Problem” may or may not have had on the “faithful.”  It’s a good read, but I find the discussions in the comment section even more interesting.

The author of the article includes the video showing a hypothetical exchange between a tech salesman and a customer.  The customer insists that he(?) wants an iPhone.  When the salesperson presents reasons for wanting another phone, the customer insists on an iPhone.  ”It’s has the wifi.”

What intrigues me, and what has me wanting to get my brother’s take on this, isn’t so much the article, or even the video, but the comment thread that has arisen, discussing the video.  One commenter (@therantguy) sees the video as simply portraying the blind fervor and devotion demonstrated by the Apple Faithful, while another sees the video as a testament to the “truth” about Apple-that other salespeople don’t listen, and actually mislead their customers while Apple is all that is true and virtuous.  The discussion goes on for a while, bringing in others as well–and it’s a good read!

So–here’s my question for those that play in the interpretation game:  What can we learn about how we interpret documents (scripture, the Constitution, our Tax Code) by this simple exchange?

For the video, watch this (but be warned, it’s NOT SAFE FOR WORK)

SECURITY WARNING:

For a discussion on this, listen to “”Real Tech for Real People” episode 42.

I have received numerous emails purportedly from “Verizon Wireless” but which instead is a rather malicious attempt to download many evil things onto your compu

ter.  NOTE:  The emails really are NOT coming from Verizon Wireless, but are imposters.

The email advertises new features/phones, etc, and when you click on the link it “ultimately” takes you to the Verizon Wireless site–but first routes you through several EVIL sites that drop malicious payloads into your computer  (trojans, keyloggers, password-stealers, worms, etc.)

TIP OFF? Check the actual email address that sent the email. It usually will be from some “other” site. I have seen:

• mugrealize (dot com)
• reply.rigidcomp (dot com)
• mx2.driftshy
• labelfair
• and many MANY others.

BEST DEFENSE: As always, DON’T use the links in the emails, but go directly to the site.

I discuss other ways of knowing whether an email is “legitimate” on the podcast.  Go listen to Episode 42.

Yesterday my brother posted a tweet, acknowledging that he is on 35 lists on Twitter.¹  This got me thinking about how these lists are created, and actually made public…. and thinking once again about the notions of “Crowdsourcing” and the “The Wisdom of Crowds.”

As I understand it, Twitter added “lists” because people wanted a simple way of grouping the people they follow according to some sort of structure that made sense to them.  Tweetdeck had added that capability through “groups” and I had even started using that feature.  I had built groups based on my major categories of interest:  Family. Close (real) friends.  Local people. Educators.  Twitter took that idea, allowed us to create lists through them, and then also offered the option to make the lists “public” and subscribe-able.  People can see your public lists, and if they like them–follow them!

Once Twitter released that option I had actually abandoned the notion of groups and lists.  I wasn’t so sure about what I wanted to use them for anyway.  I have since gone back, adding a private list of just family and friends.

So here is what I am wondering as I peruse the 35 lists that have listed my brother, and the lists that have added me:

Are they all really that different?  And if not, are they a “waste” of time?

In my lists, I see I am listed on a number of Supply Chain Management lists.  And educator lists.  My brother’s lists are understandably predominantly discipline related, and education related.  There are a few others, but those dominate–and that’s the point.  There appears, on a curory look, to be significant overlap on these lists.

The concept of “Wisdom of the Crowds” and “Crowd-sourcing” is that crowds, when gathered together, make better decisions, and are more creative.  Potentially (and grossly oversimplified).   By building lists of people that share common interests we can see the views of others who are thinking about the same things, and get a wide range of perspectives. ²

So here are the “research questions” (or “investigative questions”) that I have:

1.  How many groups have identical or very similar themes? (Like “supply Chain Managers”)

2.  On similar lists, what is the membership overlap?

3.  How much time is spent developing these similar, and perhaps redundant, lists?

4.  Is there a better way to “share” lists, so people aren’t always reinventing the lists (and taking time to do that?)

5.  Is there some psychological need that gets filled by creating one’s own lists, rather than following someone else’s list?  Control? Ownership?

My brother blogged on his thoughts concerning Apple’s “walled garden” comparing it more to a grocery store, or to a “boxed software” store–sacrificing choice for security.  (Oddly a familiar refrain since 2001–sacrificing degrees of freedom for a “sense” of security.)

I like the grocery store analogy, but he didn’t  go where I thought he would.

Original Image from http://www.joe-anybody.com/id47.html

I thought he was going to go with the “General Store” analogy where Mr Ike (remember the Waltons?) would be behind the counter. You would go the counter with your mom’s list and he would get everything for you. No real choice in manufacturer of flour, or sugar, or even fabric. You bought what he bought, and brought.

Then we had the advent of the supermarket. You, the consumer, could now peruse from a vast array of similar products, deciding which ones of the myriad choices was right for you. Let’s take my favorite example: tomato paste. You want Heinz? Hunts? Giant store brand? Great Value? You want 4 oz? 8? 16? 32? The killer 64 oz? The assortment just of tomato based products is staggering–yet all choices we have.

Our choices remain limited by that which Walmart, or Giant, or Wegman’s chooses to stock, but (at least in the 2 former cases) they are limited by fiscal and physical constraints, and not some artistic and aesthetic focus.

If you don’t like the choices at one grocery store, you can simply go to another.

Apple is somewhere between these. They aren’t limiting us to only one choice (but oh happy day if we only could be annoyed by one fart app instead of 300!)

Apple however does limit choice. They not only control the store, but they won’t let you go to another store (without forcing you to make ‘unauthorized changes” to your device. Now, I hear the response–”you can go to another store–get a different phone!” But that’s not really the same.

In the analogy of the grocery store I have a device that I use to consume a product (my stomach, and all pertinences attached thereto). I am able to choose between a selection of products that I consume, but the device of consumption stays the same.

In the Apple model, I am forced to forgo a consumption device (one that might have a large number of appealing factors) for the “option” to consume a different assortment of products.

I don’t see why it has to be “either, or.” This Cartesian Anxiety must stop. Tell us that we are “safest” if we shop in the company store. But let us choose (perhaps through an “opt in” feature that won’t cause nightmares with firmware updates) to choose a different store. Let the consumer decide on the risks of consumption, while allowing us to have the same consumption device.

Let us “choose.”

Does Apple not have the “Stomach” for that?

Dean Dad published his “Nerdy Academic’s Tech Wish List” today, and  in looking at it, I thought “Hey, we have talked about almost all of these over at Real Tech for Real People podcast — I should reply!”  I then thought “I should share the thoughts here, too!”

So, here are my replies to his 14 requests.  Some were rather quick, others are requests for tech that would be “way cool” if we could ever get it. Without further ado, the 14 points: Read the rest of this entry »

I know–you think I am crazy for my headline.  Mom’s wouldn’t do that, but it suddenly came to me today that we are putting so much information in one site that  Moms (and frankly, all of us) are quietly, and accidentally, putting their children at risk of “Identity theft.”  We have a trusting attitude about Facebook.  We don’t think about the ingenuity of those that seek to commit evil in the dark.  We share. We love. We risk all.

You may know that I am trying to leave Facebook (and if you read my posts, you know I proposed a way to ‘roll your own’ using existing social networking sites.)  The reason I am concerned about Facebook, and wanting to leave, is that I am tired of the constant push and pull.  They push the limits on protecting privacy, we push back, they pull back… They claim they own our photos, we push, they pull back… I am not surprised, though. They don’t view their users as their customers (we aren’t–the advertisers are) but they simply view their users as the generators of content that will drive advertising sales.

The problem is that I am not sure how many really understand the several layers of privacy that could be at risk.

And here is where Moms put their kids at risk.  You know that security question “What is your mother’s maiden name?” Well… with so many women including there maiden name on facebook (“hey–my old friends can find me easier!”) it may actually put their childrens’ identity at risk.¹  I suppose this wouldn’t be a problem, so long as we make sure we don’t connect to our parents/siblings, and so forth.  But we share the information (Maiden name) and the say “oh, here are my kids’ names, too.”

Quickly, let me say I am in no way really trying to blame moms for ANYTHING here.  It’s not the fault of Moms or the kids.   I suspect all of us are in a sense “guilty” here–we don’t think about how easily people can connect the dots on this information.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t fully understand how Facebook shares information.  Apparently, even if you only share your information with your friends, if the friends have their settings open to “everyone” then your information is exposed.

I wish we could trust people. I wish we could trust Facebook.  But in this world we must be cautious.

My first thought when reading the headline “Google Maps cars pull some user data” was “*YAWN.* Another story about ‘do no evil’ Google being caught accidently being evil.”

It at first seemed a rehash of the old story.  As Google’s street mapping cars drive by the apparently record your WIFI address and map it to the GEOLOC (GPS) coordinates to enhance navigation. ¹  But then the story got, well.. interesting.

It turns out that they’ve also been collecting and storing data from those unsecured hotspots.  Anything that was being transmitted during the time those cars were driving by may have been picked up by Google’s software and stored.²

So, as if to prove to people that they should be encrypting their wifi networks, the Google car has been capturing the actual DATA being transmitted.  Now keep in mind, this isn’t just the data that is being sent out over the internet. Oh, no.  This is everything you are doing over your wifi network.

Saving homework to a network drive?

GOT IT.

Moving pictures or music from one computer to another?

GOT IT.

Updating your business’ financial spreadsheets on the network drive?

GOT IT.

But we shouldn’t worry, because Google doesn’t want to do evil, and so they are doing everything they need to do.  They will make adjustments to their software to stop “eavesdropping” on your digital “in home” conversations.  And then, at the end of the article, they tell us this:

Google says it will work with local authorities to show what information was collected and make sure it is disposed of properly.

Yup–have no fear.  Whatever information they have “accidentally” collected will be given to the local authorities to dispose of “properly.”

Honestly, I am more concerned about my financials getting handed around than I am anything else, but does this strike anyone else as… well…. odd?  And remember, you don’t have to be doing something “illegal” to have information that could be embarrassing or personally destructive if  released.  ^{3   4}

Usually the local authorities need a warrant to tap into your phone and data lines.  They certainly need a warrant before they can go into your homes. (Just ask Jason Chen) but what happens if someone “just happens to give them information?”  Can that information be used?  I mean, it essentially has the same weight as “we received a tip from a citizen that…”

Should we be worried?  What are your thoughts?  Big Brother, or a “Tempest in a Teapot?” ⁵