David Isenberg’s latest SMART letter (#81) is out, and it’s another good ‘un. The bulk of the issue talks about his recent trip to Middle Earth, um, New Zealand, a place that may be small enough to be smart enough to do the Right Thing about telecommunications. Unfortunately, he hasn’t yet posted it on his website.

David includes a quotation from Mark Crispin Miller:

“[U.S. President George W. Bush] has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he’s speaking punitively, when he’s talking about violence, when he’s talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It’s only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes.”

Mark Crispin Miller author of The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, quoted in “Bush Anything But Moronic,” by Murray Whyte, Toronto Star, November 28, 2002.

1 Comment »

Denise at Bag ‘n’ Baggage describes her thought process in using a Creative Commons license. It’s a helpful discussion by a bloggin’ lawyer. She also answers reader’s questions.

The Creative Commons has its own useful blog.

6 Comments »

Eric disagrees with my comments about why digital ID schemes need to be driven from the bottom up based on the real needs of the market. I’m just not sure he’s disagreeing with what I’m actually saying.

I’m saying that I’m wary of digID schemes driven from the top down because they are not addressing the real needs of the market; those needs are already being addressed in a thousand different ways. Somehow this comes across as elitist in Eric’s re-statement of it. Or maybe he’s just teasing me. Anyway, the substance of Eric’s reply is that, in caps, “IT’S ALREADY HERE.” The Big Boys are already aggregating and blacklisting.

Eric’s been doing us all a service by pointing this out. We should do what we can (i.e., precious little) to fight the Big Boys’ plans. But rushing to support another top-down scheme, albeit one that is far better and far more focused on the rights of the individual, isn’t necessarily the right way to counteract the predatory ID schemes already coming at us. Here are two reasons why not: First, if there’s no market demand for such a system - and there isn’t - it won’t work. Second, even if there were, that wouldn’t stop the anti-market Big Boys from imposing their will on us.

So, I can’t get too het up about supporting a humane digital ID scheme that will bring with it — necessarily, according to Bryan — a DRM scenario that, IMO, is as close to a nightmare as we can dream.

Be the first to comment »

Tig’s Corner says what I’ve been trying to say about DigID: “… unless there are applications which use digital id, why will I want to use them?” Right on. We’ve got a bunch of digital id capabilities already, each solving some real problem such as: How can I trust that you’ve sent me money for the thing I sold you at eBay? How can I be sure that you have the right to change the way my daily email newsletter from Slate is delivered? How can I be sure that your company isn’t a Nigerian scam? To each of these questions of authority and authorization, we have developed good enough answers. Imposing a top-down, infrastructure-wide solution - even one where we get to control our IDs, which is (as everyone in the thread agrees) an absolute requirement - will fail because there is no market demand for it. It will be over-engineered and will bring with it the known tendencies towards abuse in favor of benefits that the market hasn’t asked for.

1 Comment »

By Jay Sulzberger, of NY’s Free Computing organization, forwarded by Seth Johnson:

Tuesday 31 December 2002: Deadline for Comments on W3C Patents Policy

In the past two years the Free Software Movement has moved W3C, the Official Standards Body of the World Wide Web, from a proposed patent policy, which would have, in future, denied us our present right to full and free use of free software to build the Web, to a policy intended to guarantee that free software may be used without fear of patent encumbrances. This move is an important victory for us. But the present proposed policy on patents has a bug that is worth fixing. The mechanism of the bug is non-obvious, except to people who have studied the GPL and certain other free software licenses. It is a bug that, if the proposal is made an official standard, would allow for patent encumbrances to be laid on certain free software in circumstances where today no encumbrance is allowed.

Here is what the Free Software Foundation says on its front page about this bug:

The W3C “Royalty-Free” patent policy proposal does not protect the rights of the Free Software community to full participation in the implementation and extension of web standards. Please read more on this issue and send a comment to the W3C.

Part of the effort that moved the W3C to its present position was a furious outpouring of comments in opposition to the original proposal of the Englobulators:

http://www.w3.org/2001/ppwg http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/thread.html

The fix needed right now is a small fix. But the W3C must again be reminded with what jealous vigor we guard our right to build our Web the way we have built it down to this day, using free software.

The bug appears in Item 3 of Section 3, titled “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements”, of the present proposal:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114

This Item allows for a supposedly free grant to use a patent to be so restricted that a piece of Web infrastructure software might be encumbered if used for some non-Web use. Since the GPL does not allow such encumbrancing, GPL-ed Web software re-purposed for non-Web use could not be legally freely redistributed.

Please read the Free Software Foundation’s page on this bug:

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html

The text of the page is below.

Here is the official Last Call for Comments:

http://www.w3.org/2002/12/patent-policy-lastcall-info.html

If you write a comment in your own words, for repair of the bug, it will help.

Jay Sulzberger
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York’s Free Computing Organization.

Be the first to comment »

As I’ve been messing around with perl a little this morning, trying to learn it more systematically, I’ve been feeling gravity tugging on my eyes and hearing the morning quiet more acutely than usual.

It took me a few minutes to realize why a programming language is making me sad. I’m mourning Daniel Pearl.

Be the first to comment »

I just read a letter to the editor that listed as benefits of casino gambling what were actually disadvantages. It took me two sentences to suspect it was sarcastic and three to confirm it. In fact, the writer had to get all blatant about it: “Upticks in crime, problem gambling, and other harmful social consequences are things we all need.” A subtler writer would have left the pejoratives out. We still would have recognized it as sarcasm if the claims were outrageous enough.

Here’s my point: Sarcasm has to be a tough one for AI.

Ironically, Joseph Weizenbaum’s ELIZA program that responded as if it were a Rogerian psychologist was taken seriously by a surprising number of people although Weizenbaum intended its content to be a parody. (You can play it online here.)

1 Comment »

This is how it happens. Pettiness is the most subversive enemy of freedom.

6 Comments »

I’d blog more, but our downstairs tenants (it’s a 2-family house) have just had their (= our) oil heater turned off by The Officials. Jeez, like a some smoke and sparks ever hurt anyone!

So, now it’s off to spend the rest of the day and thousands of dollars getting it fixed. Gas conversion here we come!

Be the first to comment »

There’s a manifesto proclaiming a “wireless commons” that has me just puzzled enough that I haven’t signed it. It proclaims the virtues of wireless connectivity (using unlicensed spectrum, not Open Spectrum), and then commits the signatories to some type of support in the wireless build-out:

Becoming a part of the commons means being more than a consumer. By signing your name below, you become an active participant in a network that is far more than the sum of its users. You will strive to solve the social, political and technical challenges we face. You will provide the resources your community consumes by co-operating with total strangers to build the network that we all dream of.

I don’t think I can live up to that demand, for I am primarily a bandwidth consumer; I do have have a wifi transmitter that my neighbors could use. Does that mean I can sign?

Anyway, a “wireless commons” is a phrase worth floating.

3 Comments »

Mitch Ratcliffe comments on the email thread about digital ID. Among other points:

… the basic problem with your debate [is] that it assumes the policy will be arrived at by companies bargaining with one another and, finally, once the dance of the giants is finished, offered to customers as a fait accompli. … People own their identities and should continue to own them as they migrate into electronic environments

I don’t think any of us disagree with Mitch that individuals should own their identity. I take that for granted. My concern has been more with: (1) The imposition of ID schemes top-down rather than continuing to grow bottom-up solutions to actual problems, and (2) What we would gain and lose with a strong digID system in place. The first concern sounds like it maps to Mitch’s imperative (”Thou Shalt Own Thy Identity”) but need not: it’s conceptually possible to impose a top-down identity scheme that enables us to own our identities. It’s just politically less likely since the people doing the imposing have an interest in taking custody of our IDs for us. How thoughtful of them.

Be the first to comment »

In response to Eric’s
musings,
Doc, Bryan, href="http://akma.disseminary.org/">AKMA, href="http://epeus.blogspot.com/">Kevin and href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/index.html">
I have been engaged in an email thread. With
their permission, I’ve bundled together the
messages, with some very minor cleanup (e.g.,
removing signoffs, etc.). You can read the loosely-raveled thread here.

3 Comments »

Much as I love DayPop, I can see that I’m contributing to its inaccuracy. If I see a link that’s in the DayPop Top 40, I won’t blog it unless I have something particular to say about it for I figure it’s being blogged all over the place anyway.Thus, according to the Law of Inconspicuous Fame (”True fame extinguishes mentions”), height and persistence on the Top 40 tends to defeat itself.

Try out the Technorati Sidebar. Plunk in an URL and it will show you all the blogs that refer to it. (Well, all the blogs that Technorati tracks: 18,178 of ‘em at last count.)

3 Comments »

On page one of the Boston Globe this morning is the announcement that a crackhead religious group claims to have cloned a human, perfectly and flawlessly reproducing someone’s DNA. On page 9 of the Living/Arts section is an article by Randy Lewis that first appeared in the LA Times that says that Eminem, Toby Keith and the Transplants all have added analog-sounding crackles and pops to their CDs so that they’ll sound as good as the old vinyl LPs.

For millennia, the distinction between human beings and God was that we’re imperfect. In the age of digital machines, increasingly that’s the line between being human and being technology.

Q: How many human institutions exist to deal with our imperfections?
A: All of them.
Each is informed by the fact that not only are the participants imperfect, but the system itself is fallible. No wonder we flounder with our own perfect inventions.

2 Comments »

Eric paints a plausible scenario of what the Net will look like once strong digital IDs are in place, and then he scares the crap out of us by pointing to Verisign’s new “consumer authentication system,” currently being tested by eBay, that checks “50 best of breed data sources (personal, credit, demographic and black list information) to cross verify and risk rank consumers.”

Blacklist???? Whose? How you get on? How do you get off? So, now Verisign’s automated credit check will evaluate whether you have the standing to buy cotton doilies from eBay based on blacklists that come from unspecified somewheres. Anyone who’s dealt with Verisign’s ability to handle exceptions when it comes to domain names knows that Kafka was being optimistic.

This by itself should count as an argument against instituting “strong” digital IDs.

4 Comments »

Lord bless Bryan Field-Elliot over at NetMeme. Bryan is a founder of PingID,

a member-owned, technology-neutral network that is facilitating the business framework necessary for the accelerated deployment of federated identity services.

He’s also a straightforward guy. In response to Doc’s call for “full-power” digital IDs in order to give power back to “consumers,” Bryan writes:

There’s an important relationship here with DRM (Digital Rights Management), which I think has been danced around quite enough, and should be brought into the spotlight. The relationship is, quite simply, that “Strong Identity” (what Doc calls “full power”) is synomymous with Digital Rights Management. You can’t have one without the other.

Why not? Bryan explains:

In both cases, one party (individual, or content megaconglomerate) produces digital content (personal info, or a $100mln movie), and makes it available for consumption by other parties, but only with some assurance that the information won’t be copied or applied in undesired ways. The two problem patterns, and their range of solutions, appear pretty much identical to me.

…by the nature of information (which “wants to be free”, it’s said), we can never have Doc’s “full power” identity infrastructure without some enforcement teeth.

As far as I can see, only hardware enforcement, or legal enforcement, will provide such a bite, and in both cases, likely to be circumventable by the sufficiently determined.

It’s good to see the relationship of DRM and digID made explicit. Too often those pushing for digID avoid acknowleding the relationship.

So, let’s get yet more clear about the relationship of DRM and digID. Bryan is not saying (I assume) that the two can’t be distinguished the way you can’t separate “automobile” from “car” or “wet” from “liquid water.” Rather, he says, “you can’t have one without the other.”

And here I disagree. We could have digIDs that are used solely for enabling us prove we’re the one that sent an email, to enable online voting, and to prove that we are the holder of the credit cards we use to buy stuff online. And, as Bryan acknowledges, we can have DRM without digID; DRM just wouldn’t “have teeth.”

But it all depends on what you mean by teeth. Bryan says he accepts “legal enforcement” as a type of tooth. You don’t need digIDs to crack down on pirates who are taping movies on their first day of release and posting the files on the Net or to arrest the pirates who are mass producing bootleg CDs. You can even crack down on Kazaa “super nodes” or students at the Naval Academy who are downloading MP3s. You only need digIDs if you want to make it technologically nigh impossible to do what you want with the content you’ve downloaded. You only need digIDs if you want your ownership rights to be regulated at the bit level by the people from whom you’ve bought the content. You only need digIDs if your idea of DRM is CPPSROSE: “Content Providers’ Post-Sale Rigid and One-Sided Enforcement.” For more reasonable digital rights management we don’t need digIDs.

So, it’s good to surface the fact that when many people talk about digital IDs, they’re often really talking about DRM. But, IMO we need to be damn sure not to define DRM solely as the right of content providers to prevent us from using the content we’ve bought in the ways we see fit within the bounds of law.

Now Bryan, who understands this stuff 100x better than I, can set me straight…

Bryan’s posted a response. Here’s what he says (from an email to me):

I think we disagree mostly because I didn’t make clear enough in my original post, the difference between using DigID to “prove who you are” (what we do today), vs. using DigID to “control others’ use of your personal info” (which we don’t have today, and which Doc has variously named “Strong Identity” or “Sovereign Identity”). I believe, your response to me assumes I’m comparing the former to DRM, when actually I’m comparing the latter to DRM.

In his blog, Bryan says: “In classic security terms, we’re talking about taking authentication as a given, and moving up the chain to a flexible authorization system for access to personal information.” DRM gives the vendor the ability to authorize our use of the goods we buy, so I can see that formally digID and DRM are the same. Thanks for the clarification, Bryan (and did I get it right?).

Be the first to comment »

I’ve reviewed Adapation, the Charlie Kaufman comedy, over at Blogcritics.

(There’s one howlingly incoherent sentence in the third paragraph where apparently I pressed the “Insert Gibberish” key instead of the “Delete” key. And since I’m temporarily locked out of the site, I can’t fix it. Sorry.)

Be the first to comment »

The University of Phoenix spams me about once a day. For example:

We are closer to you than you might think. Go to http://oz.valueclick.com/r/hs0243102/a0070077/0 to check the location nearest you. University of Phoenix is the nation’s largest private university.

—————————

You are receiving this email because you have opted-in to receive email from publisher: swelldeals. To unsubscribe, click below:http://u2.%host%/?z=95-2047662-ByRumS

Ah, yes, the mark of a truly excellent institute of higher education is that it gets its spam list from swelldeals.com. (No, I never “opted-in.”) Well, that’s what happens when you hire carney folk to administer your college.

3 Comments »

Cory Treffiletti in Online Spin writes about the possibility that the Internet has become a mature enough medium that it can provide “continuity” with a company’s mainstream broadcast campaign:

Maybe the Internet has actually become the best medium for running a continuity campaign, to sustain the message conveyed in Television and is clearly the second most important medium in conveying a message to the consumer?

After noting that 134M people in the US are online, he writes:

Given that the prices for Interactive media are so low, and that online ad spending has surpassed out-of-home and is quickly catching up on radio regardless of the cost cutting, it stands to reason that marketers are realizing this medium is indeed a great opportunity for reaching a mass audience effectively and generating a response.

You can’t argue with that! Well, except maybe to say: Noooooooo! Online marketing is almost always like handing out business cards at a wedding.

Will someone just send Treffiletti a copy of Gonzo Marketing already?

1 Comment »

Eric’s posted more in his on-line writing project. It’s damn fun watching his essay evolve.

And now for my daily quibble with it. He writes that in our previous blog entries Akma and I point
toward the inefficiency of the Net not being a bad thing.” He replies: “I don’t think it is either, from the humanities perspective.” So let me be clearer: I am not presenting a hippie point of view when I say that the Net’s inefficiency at the packet level is the source of its strength. It has nothing to do with “bits just wanna be free, man.” It has everything to do with measurable, quantifiable decisions about how to build a network that is robust and insanely scalable. So don’t go tarring me with that hippie brush, man. Now, where’d I put my bong?

And how does this apply to economics? I don’t know nothing about economics, nevertheless the point I was trying to make was that the Internet’s greatest economic strength - and its strength in building markets - has been in ventures that are bottom-up, do the job well enough, and are highly specific to a problem. Many of the attempts to impose digital IDs fail all three criteria.

I agree with that old hippie, Akma:

But this returns me to my perpetual refrain that we need a new business model, not a new way of enforcing the old. RIAA and Hollywood might like to use DigID to ensure that one and only one person has the right to listen to my copy of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot—but if DigID is going to function as a weapon for enforcing the perpetuation of an obsolescent business model, than we’re much better off without it. Kevin knows this, and is touting Mediagora

And while I doth protest too much about not being a hippie, here’s a comment from Aaron Kinney’s year-end round-up of TV for Salon (for-pay edition).

… reminded us that television is the best medium for disseminating propaganda, as it served as the premiere for the Bush administration’s ad campaign claiming that anyone who purchases marijuana may be financing terrorists. I humbly submit that, rather than shifting blame for mass killing and a national security fiasco onto recreational pot smokers, the administration should maybe shut the fuck up and think about tracking down Osama bin Laden.

Don’t bogart that cultural revolution, muh friend.

7 Comments »

Eric is continuing his experiment in thinking out loud. He’s refined his original argument about the Net’s effect on the economy. It’s too rich a chunk to chew all at once, so I’ll just nibble at it. (Even though I’m about to disagree with him, this isn’t a “He’s Wrong!” sort of disagreement but an attempt to understand better by pushing back a bit.)

Eric begins by saying that the Internet is inefficient when it comes to managing reputations. Maybe, but so what? The Net’s strength is its inefficiency. A more efficient network would queue bits in order of importance, pre-compute routings, etc. So long as the bits are getting there, who cares if it’s the most efficient route? I worry that strong digital ID systems over-build in the name of efficiency and completeness.

The fact is that the Net has actually done an impressive job of building reputation management systems where they’re needed: eBay, Amazon, epinions all do a good enough job of it. Home pages and weblogs are another sort of reputation system. So, if there’s a market waiting to happen if only we had a reputation system, then why hasn’t someone already built one on the edge of the Net?

And the same goes for digital IDs themselves. If the need is that great, then why hasn’t it been solved? (I don’t mean this in a neener-neener way. I mean it as a real question.) Yes, we need strong digital IDs to enabling online voting. But I can already buy anything I want online by using my credit card. I have passwords at a zillion sites and a little password note pad that reminds me of what they are. My fear is that by trying to build systematic ID systems that don’t spring from particular applications, we’ll over-engineer a solution to a problem that doesn’t need that much solving.

And since over-solving this problem would benefit powers that would recentralize the network, there are additional reasons to aim for inefficient, minimal digital IDs.

Also, Eric makes a passing reference to an idea that sounds fascinating: “… property rights exist (at some economic level) to simplify the exchange.” He credits this to Frank Field. I hope Eric expands on it.

Doc is waxing wise in his response to Eric, although I think that in Doc’s terms I don’t want identity services to be “Net native.” I want them on the edge. I suspect Doc does, too, and we’re disagreeing only verbally.

Be the first to comment »

A hearty virtual hug to Tom and Wendy, and a gentle embrace for Sawyer James. Congratulations!

Be the first to comment »

I wax incomprehensible in an interview at the SXSW site. Jon Lebkowsky asked good questions. I drove down the road into thickets every time.

I’ll be keynoting the SXSW Interactive conference in March. I’ll be using PowerPoints because, as is well known, PowerPoint prevents presentations from wandering into the deep end of the pool. That’s why we use ‘em.

See you in Austin?

Be the first to comment »

Bruce Kushnick’s book, “The Unauthorized Bio of the Baby Bells,” is available as a free download via the Teletruth organization. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m looking forward to it. Why, it even has an introduction by the redoubtable Bob Metcalfe!

1 Comment »

Today’s Boston Globe has a history of the Open Source movement by Laurence Schorsch that’s quite positive, citing it as a threat “peering over the horizon … that just might topple Microsoft.” Appropriately, it begins with Richard Stallman’s contribution. Yet, although Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond are interviewed, local-boy Stallman isn’t. The second to last paragraph explains why:

(Stallman declined to be interviewed for this article unless we promised to call the operating system “GNU/Linux” instead of the more common “Linux.”)

Every time Stallman interrupts a conversation to insist that people change the way they speak, the damage he does to the social values GNU was created to support are mitigated only by the impression that he’s nuts.

Language: The ultimate open source project.

Be the first to comment »

Eric gives a fast, breezy, and fascinating story of his life so far. and then responds to AKMA. Great framing of the current controversy Eric started by publishing the rough draft of his thoughts. Also, Eric makes the important point that as companies increasingly require us to have an in-house ID, we’re getting used to the notion of having one out on the big bad Web.

I do take exception to his saying that I’m among those insisting that digital ID can’t capture my soul, man. I’ve instead been insisting that the only thing “digital identity” has in common with “personal identity” is the use of the word “identity.” The problems I have with digital ID have to do with its importance (Eric thinks it’s the linchpin to the new economy), who will own it, and how easy it will be to abuse.

2 Comments »

= saw “The Two Towers” yesterday with eight 12-year-olds who didn’t get up once in the 3 hours to go to the bathroom.

What more could you want in this type of movie? Adventure, bravery, characters with inner struggles, lots of story line, astounding scenery, amazing graphics…

Well, now that you mention it: Since I don’t care about fidelity to the source, I wish the movie were less sexist. And does it say anywhere in the books that the human characters are all white?

9 Comments »

Dethe has found a very funny … well, here’s the relevant excerpt from the email he sent me:

…there’s a wonderful paper on Postmodern Programming. The authors presented this at OOPSLA last month, and it was one of the highlights of the conference for me. My favorite part is when they define the essence of the PoMo programming language: Languages get defined by the problems they solve. The first exercise for many programmers is to compute the first thousand prime numbers. Here’s their solution:

http://www.google.com/search?q=first%20thousand%20primes

I thought you’d enjoy that, seeing as how it combines PoMo, Google, and a wickedly funny smack on the head in one go.

My friend Paul English, when asked if he knows someone’s phone number, has been known to reply: “Yes. It’s 411.”

Be the first to comment »

Scott Kirsner’s always readworthy column in the Boston Globe (here today, gone tomorrow) has a table with predictions by seven leading Boston tech analyst companies. I’m assuming that these predictions were volunteered by the analysts and thus should be counted as marketing tools.

Note: I have no predictions of my own to offer at this time. I wouldn’t dare.

1 Comment »

Akma, who is one of the funniest serious writers around, jumps into the Norlin Fray. He intuits, correctly in my view, that what’s motivating Eric more than anything is his interest in digital IDs.

Akma ably worries about one side of digital IDs: our persistent reputation on the Internet. What happens, he wonders, when we systematize that? What do we gain and what do we lose? The other side of digital ID, however, is the one that authenticates me in my online transaction. There’s little existential about such an ID. It’s really just a way of assuring that the money that’s about to transfer in fact comes from my real world wallet. Akma sees (or assumes?) a connection between these two:

If DigID is designed for users first, and only subsequently for commercial interests, then users won’t mind (much) sharing DigID with commerce. If DigID is designed for commerce first and thrust upon users, users will resist and evade.

I assume that these two IDs can be kept apart. But I wonder if I’m right.

Blogthread: These are the additional links Akma captures in the current Norlin blogthread: Doc Searls, Mitch Ratcliffe, Kevin Marks and me.

If it weren’t for the possessive, I could have had an all-caps title for this blog entry. Damn!

9 Comments »

I’m participating in a group blog about what the government of a connected people might look like. It’s at GreaterDemocracy.org.

For example, the latest entry is from Jon Lebkowsky:

Langdon Winner explores how the technological complexity of our infrastructures has made the U.S. (et al.) vulnerable to attack, and how, having seen a demonstration of that vulnerability in 9/11, we have hardened social and political systems and accepted a sacrifice of fundamental rights and freedoms that would have been unthinkable before the terrorist attack. Winner suggests better ways to deal with the perceived vulnerability. [Link]

Other members of the blog team include Jock Gill, Peter Kaminski and David Reed.

Adina blogs about why she’s been blogging about politics more than she expected to:

My personal feelings about these issues come from the fact that my dad is a holocaust refugee…[O]ne of the questions that I had about approaching adulthood was — if the place that I lived started sliding toward totalitarianism, would I be one of the people who spoke up, or would I be one of the people who kept silent until life became unbearable.

When the government rounds up immigrants on excuses of incorrect paperwork, and is able to detain them indefinitely without evidence or trial…

Every political decision says something about who we are but also about who we are becoming. And that’s what’s truly scary.

2 Comments »

Seth Johnson, in an email, points to a fascinating paper by David Walker called “Heirs of the Enlightenment: Copyright During the French Revolution and Information Revolution In Historical Perspective.” From the introduction:

During the Enlightenment, two conflicting viewpoints on the nature of authorship, creativity, and copyright emerged. One view, proposed by the French thinker Denis Diderot, advanced the notion that literary works are unique creations of the individual mind, and thus should be protected as the most sacred form of property. The other view, advanced by the Marquis de Condorcet, saw literary works as the expression of ideas that already exist in nature, and thus belong to all and should be made available to all for the common good. Both viewpoints had a profound influence on the changing legal status of intellectual property during the French Revolution. Even more, this paper will argue that these two conflicting viewpoints, both of which were firmly grounded in Enlightenment thought, still continue to have an influence into the present, and the tension between the two continues to be played out in the arena of copyright in the United States in the year 2000.

3 Comments »

Kevin’s got some smart stuff to say about Eric’s argument about the Net’s economic value. Kevin even manages to explain what I put so fumblingly.

Kevin points to a NY Times article that concludes:

The same economic forces that lead to premium and discount sellers in the offline world are at work in the online world. But the differences in transaction costs make the price differences both more extreme and easier to observe,

This suggests that the Net is both commoditizing some businesses and leaving room for added-value providers.

2 Comments »

RageBoy now has two — count ‘em, two! — blogs. His new one is at the Corante site and sounds a lot like the RB of Gonzo Marketing and Cluetrain, a voice I’ve missed. Here’s a taste:

…We’re making up stuff and feeding it to each other. Lies and fictions and contrafactual fabrications of the worst sort. Or the best sort. We think we’re hiding behind all these random words we sling around. Then we’re horrified to realize we’ve betrayed ourselves. Our masks have given us away.

Scary. And beautiful….

Meanwhile, over at his first blog, RB’s monkey-boy is still pulling up the maenad’s skirts, diddling with the guy’s hammers, and engaging in various forms of satyre. It is what you might call a shadow site.

2 Comments »

I just published a new issue of my (free) newsletter, a mere 5 weeks late.

I blame blogging. And I don’t know what to do about it. Really.