FREEDOM OR SECURITY-TALK IS NEEDED-Dangerous or Otherwise

FEELING MANIPULATED?

or as though someones listening in?

   The big yap yap now over the NSA disclosures at least

has people talking.

     And there is a lot of that going around.(Friend and reader Beverly noted, the bovine above is not a bull. Indeed, as a careful look will inform you. But just sort of go with it)  
      A question is, How do we want it?  What are the boundaries?

      Are we willing to give up liberty to feel safe? The conversation is needed and all of us, from voters to the intelligence community, need to weigh in. 

      I'm hung up on a couple of points.  Why is so much of our top clearance, security and intelligence work being done by private contractors? When and how did we decide to job it out and for who's benefit?  We are now paying private sources more money to do work that should be the exclusive franchise of US Government employees.

      Eisenhower had it right about the "military-industrial complex."  The modern codicil is "intelligence-industrial."  So a high school drop out, army wash out, can get hired by the CIA and get clearance and then quit only to be hired by a private contractor, paid reportedly a $ quarter million a year and have his ticket punched so he can purloin some of our most secret and sensitive information. Yea, that's intelligent isn't it!  Where are the adults?

      It's not an easy riddle. Americans voluntarily give up more private and specific data to social media, banks, in online purchases and e-mail than what the NSA has gathered in bundles. Private business knows more about you than do the spooks and some in the intelligence community  can't figure why that is, or why the current flap.

      Intelligence and security people reason they've been tasked with keeping us safe from harm and in their mind they cannot have too much information. But in the old days raw and irrelevant data got purged.  Now files are kept forever. Is that right?  It's another choice we have to make.

      The panel of Judges who guide the intelligence community in their acquisition of data also need to be heard from. It would be good for the Republic to hear the mind set and thinking of those who frame these vitally important considerations.

      And a word about Snowden as a leaker.  As a one time investigative reporter I could bore you with countless details about how a whistle blower or leaker helped get information to the public. In my experience there were many instances where the public good was served.
     Examples-an elementary school being built over a "forgotten" hazardous material dump, a grand jury being used to punish political enemies, mental patients being poisoned by inept or non existent medical supervision in over or wrong medication, Ku Klux Klansmen working on a city payroll as a result of extortion, managers of public housing selling material meant to improve housing projects out of the back door and profiting huge sums, a KGB officer trying to infiltrate a public office holder's staff, security breaches where some of this nation's most deadly nerve agent is stored, toxic poison leaking into a public water resource.

      I would not have been able to get that information onto the public agenda, had it not been for state, city and federal employees getting information to me-data, records, documents that had been buried, hidden, over looked, forgotten or in some cases "destroyed." 

      In my own little footnotes to history, our work prompted investigations, prosecutions, regulations, new statutes, and informed conversations. 

      We all would be well served by a robust conversation now about privacy, safety, expectations, propriety, and who should be minding our secrets.

       There's a great thought, attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.  I'm comfortable with quoting them both-

       "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either!"

   See you down the trail.

HEY FACEBOOK-WHAT ABOUT THIS?

SHARE THE WEALTH WITH

THOSE WHO MADE YOU

As the world awaits the Facebook IPO, the
experts are predicting the market value of
the company could soar to $100 Billion. One
analyst said anything under $75 Billion would be
a disappointment.
Mark Zuckerberg's company is expected to raise
some 10 Billion in the stock offering making
it one of the 4 or 5 largest IPO's in history.
Well Mark, here's something you should do-share
some of that wealth with the folks who have made
Facebook valuable-those who use the social network.
I can urge this without a conflict of interest, because
I have refused to do Facebook simply because of
the economics.  
The company has a market value now that is likely to
skyrocket when openly traded as stock, because of
those of you who social network there.  It is you,
and your exchanges and posts that give the
computers the data to mine that in turn has 
a commercial value.  You, your life, your habits
and a whole lot more creates a huge information
field which is then captured, analyzed and marketed, so Zuckerberg and company become billionaires.  
Here's a purely capitalistic entreaty-
return some of that worth and value to the 
users.  You can do that in cash, stocks,
dividends or other means.  
Facebook should attach a value to the amount of 
data and activity that you create by your use and 
compensate you accordingly.
One could even imagine a cooperative idea, 
not unlike an REI, where, based on your use
you have a percentage of year end wealth.
Be creative Mark.  After all if people found
another venue to social network, or another
way to do what they do on Facebook-and those
venues exist-and abandoned your Facebook,
how much would you and the company be
worth?  
If someone creates a model that accomplishes
what Facebook does, but also compensates
the people who make it worthy, we just
might witness another 
communication revolution.


DAY BOOK
Birds of a Feather

Several specie share a few moments on Moonstone Beach in Cambria.

Not bad for a winter's day.
See you down the trail.

DID TWITTER COMMIT SUICIDE? & BIG KIDS AT RECESS

NEWS FROM THE FRONT LINE

OF THE INFORMATION WARS

It's probably a result of my decades in journalism,

broadcasting and documentary production,

but I'm super sensitive when there are 

rumblings in the "force," that is

communications and information flow.
Veteran readers may recall a couple of 
posts that shook up a few people-
Posting (link here) about the convenience of algorithms and a kind of "thought control."  
Or about the danger of cyber crime
Read the post by linking here.
Now a new battle line has been drawn.
Here's the Forbes blog on what has set off many recriminations.


Twitter Commits Social Suicide
By Mark Gibbs, Forbes
27 January 12
Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country - while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.
ith those words earlier today, in a blog posting titled "Tweets still must flow" the management ofTwitter's went over to the dark side and may well have dug their own grave
In what can only have been a fit of corporate insanity, Twitter announced that it has the ability to filter tweets to conform to the demands of various countries.
Thus, in France and Germany it is illegal to broadcast pro-Nazi sentiments and Twitter will presumably be able to block such content and inform the poster why it was blocke
Quite obviously, Twitter's management believes that there is some kind of value in being able to filter in this way but given that, over the course of 2011, the number of tweets per second (tps) ranged from a high of almost 9,000 tps down to just under 4,000 tps, any filtering has got to be computer-driven.
So, consider this tweet:
@FactsorDie Nazi Germany led the first public anti-smoking campaign.
Could that be considered to be pro-Nazi? How will a program accurately make that determination?
What concerns me is that if the algorithm Twitter uses registers a false positive (i.e. determines that the tweet is pro-Nazi when it isn't) and the tweet has any time sensitivity to it then that attribute will be completely nullified by the time the tweet makes it out of tweet-jail if it ever does.
On the other hand if the software makes a false negative (i.e. determines that the tweet is NOT pro-Nazi when it is) then the filtering is useless and Twitter will be held accountable by every political group with an axe to grind.
Now it might be argued that some percentage of false positives or false negatives will be acceptable but what is that percentage? 0.0000o01%? That equates, at a minimum of 4,000tps, to 3,456 misclassified tweets per day or 1,261,440 per year!
And will the filtering software be able to detect irony and sarcasm? I rather doubt it.
And what about the fact that Twitter will be implicitly editing all tweets? Doesn't that attract legal issues in that they are taking on an editorial responsibility and therefore become a lightning rod for lawsuits?
I see Twitter's management having made a huge epic, mistake. In trying to appease the demands of political pressure they've dug themselves a huge hole that they won't be able to climb out of. The mere fact that they have published a blog posting claiming that they can filter seals their fate.
I really like Twitter; it's a unique and amazingly rich social platform but Twitter's management may have just diminished if not wiped out their edge and their global relevance.
You can't service all of humanity if you allow the needs of politics to triumph over the needs of the people. And if you can't service all of humanity, what is your relevance?

What do you think?
It is certainly a different world from when most information flowed from major news gathering organizations dedicated to the proposition of the public's right to know and adamant about the First Amendment. That was of course a time before news organizations were expected to be profit centers and before mergers and group ownership of once competing media.  And certainly before the sophistication of data mining and social media.


DAY BOOK
ANOTHER FLASH MOB BIRTHDAY 
AND THE OLD SCHOOL HOUSE GETS A NEW CUPOLA.

The historic San Simeon school has been spiffed up.

While the Friday Lunch Flash Mob has grown to 4 tables.

 With the tradition of a candle in the chocolate chip cookie continues.

It's like big kids at recess!
See you down the trail.

DECIDING FOR YOURSELF OR A PRIORI

OLD IS SOMETIMES BETTER
Have you followed the almost other worldly debate between
Twitter and Google about access to data and subsequent
sharing of that information?
Link here for background from Reuters news.

This very medium that we are sharing at this moment is 
extraordinary in its depth, reach and ability to be 
instant. It continues to change how we live, inform ourselves and think.  And yet as we rely on its
capacity, it begins to replace some of our
own intellectual command.  Decisions are being made for us.
This video appeared here earlier, but many of you missed it,
according to the analytics available to even a blogger such as me.  And that is part of the point.

The technology is impressive, even if inevitable.
But I wonder what happens as the decision making, fed by 
 data mining and analytics, continues. Will
we become like the humans depicted
in the Pixar masterpiece Wall-e?
What happens to the human specie if everything
is done based on convenience, prior patterns
and algorithmic decision making?
I fear that anything that begins to shape or trim 
our curiosity and free exploration leads us
to being intellectual chia pets.


HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IT HAS CHANGED
The video was recorded during a break
on the NBC Today show in January 1994.
Bryant Gumble and Katie Couric ask
WHAT IS THE INTERNET ANYWAY?

I assume Bryant and Katie now get a kick out of 
their naivety. In those days
there was no threat to the media from the new
technology platforms that today call
institutions like the network news "mainstream" or "lame stream" media. Of course all news organizations
calculate how to survive.
Computer mined and manipulated data leads to 
a kind of apriori decision making,
but how free or unbounded is it?
What price for convenience?
I hope you sometimes visit the 
21st Century Intelligence component at the
very bottom of this page.  It does a great 
job of tracking the business of our tech future.
See you down the trail.