Where did Noivad go?

The Ads really got to me (see prior post). So, after an update with a bad UI, I moved my blog. I really didn’t WANT to host it myself, but if you want something done right…

Anyway, I’ll see anyone that cares to follow me at my ad-free blog http://blog.noivad.net/ now with slick push notifications! :)  Oh, and if you care, I’ll soon have another media outlet, but it will be focusing on a different realm that I have written a bit about here and there. I would announce it now, but we are still setting everything up and I do not want to jinx it. I will say that we are reviving a production I did about 15 years ago that I greatly enjoyed working on. But perhaps I have said too much already?

Thanks for reading.

Why It is Stupid to Buy a SmartTV

There are no regulations concerning what information can & cannot be collected with smart devices, nor how that information is transmitted. This article from the BBC explains how LG’s SmartTV sends the names of his family members in clear text across the internet— something that most people would be uncomfortable having publicly available.

Besides selling your private information to any and all advertisers or 3rd party entities willing to pay for it, none seem to have anyway to prevent those 3rd parties from transferring it to others (aside from legal clauses — which would be hard to prove & a lengthy process to fix). Nor it there anyway to redact information once released to 3rd parties.

But this is only part of the threat to personal security because it would be trivial for a person with the technical ability or a warrant to obtain any and all information collected by such devices. Smart devices — those with convenience features tied to internet connectivity — are trojan horses for violations of privacy far more invasive and covert than anything else and rely of consumer ignorance to operate unfettered:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29826642

The only solution is to either never connect the devices to the internet, block all traffic or not purchase them at all.

Bistro turns the tables on Yelp, offers discounts to customers for 1-star reviews

I have heard several small business owners complain about Yelp’s “sleazy” and “crooked” (their words) tactics. I think that while ruled legal, Yelp advertising itself as a fair and honest ratings is deceptive. It is clearly a conflict of interest that they control the order of listings, and take money for advertising and placing advertisers higher in the results. When they tell businesses they can increase their star-rating by buying ad-space, or decrease it by not, that is hardly fair, nor honest. People have been led to believe Yelp star rating are accurate—they keep advertising it as such. But when Yelp is free to manipulate the listings, it is clear that “hard bargaining” is corporate speak for “manipulative coercion.” Despite its legal standing, Yelp’s practices are far from ethical—especially since it advertises ratings it publishes for businesses as genuine.

The Corps…

In response from messages from readers who are a bit perturbed by the 3rd party ads interfering with the content of this blog, I am trying a new blogging service called 10Centuries.com. The fees for a paid account are reasonable,  there are no ads. and I own my content. The appeal is triple-fold thus far. However, if I jump ship, I thought I would let people know why this move is necessary despite the very widespread exposure on WordPresses’ network of Blogs. First off. Not every page needs an Advertisement, and more importantly, when it is wrapped in an little pop up animation, it is disrespectful of the reader because of yet another thing vying of their attention. We are distracted enough these days. When I write, I tend to turn on my Noisehush NS400s I reviewed last week, and blast music.

Right now it is blasting my favorite Beatles Song, While My Guitar Gently Weeps in all its lossless glory that I ripped in iTunes 10.7. (FYI, iTunes is currently at version 11.0.4.) While I distracted myself to make sure George Harrison Wrote that song, Love & Rockets’ Here Comes the Comedown is up… ah distractions (kinda’)…

But as one of the lines I read for a character I played in an animation based on the best Social RPG ever (that I highly do not recommend), “But I digress….”

Idiocracy 

Usually I would have a break here, but. not his time. It is time to switch over to 10C! for the rest of this article… See you there.

Q: Why Join App.net? A: Privacy & No Advertising

App.net might look like just another social service to some. And, in fact, it currently looks very much like Twitter was when it started: It is just a lot of tech-savvy people talking freely and enthusiastically about app.net and whatever strikes their fancy: No celebrities promoting themselves, no ad-spam, no fake users, no incredibly stupid posts—although there are some stupid posts, there’s no one stupid enough to post public calls to kill government officials as one woman who has disappeared did. App.net is just a lot of signal with very low noise.

I get at least a few invites each month to join a new SoNet. The invites usually get a tossed into the trash almost immediately. Few get me to look at the site. But that’s usually it. Even if I do sign up the to site, I often let it languish and simply forget about it until they start spamming me to use their site, “log in with…” or want me to link my other SoNets to it.

Paying not to Share but Selectively Share

App.net is 180° away from ll of these sites though, because their interests align with my interests:

Continue reading

Hope DaltonC makes it…

I have been following Dalton Caldwell on Twitter and reading his blog posts for sometime now. A vast majority of the time, I am nodding along to each of his points, as he points out a company or industry’s fundamental breach of trust or lack of sense in some new strategy that will revolutionize the industry.

This time Dalton is trying to kickstart a new social network with a twist: App.net. Instead of selling you, the user, and having you do all the work by posting content and telling the company what you like, only to have them turn around and sell your data to marketing and advertising agency. So, they can resell it to businesses looking for people in your demographic as a higher priced “targeted ad,” he aligns the social network with users by having the money come directly from the users. Dalton—being a “very smart guy”—knows the idea of paying for a service that is usually free in order to get better treatment has come.

When live journal, tribe, friendster and myspace were all trying to figure out how to monetize their social networking sites, the public at large, didn’t understand how valuable having a way to broadcast to the internet was. Now, that the public has had a taste, the idea and acceptance of social networks being a valuable way to communicate with friends has allowed people like Dalton to finally offer a service that people know the value of paying for. Tribe, Friendster, MySpace, LiveJournal, etc. were all trying to ride the wave when it was still out at sea while also getting towed be boatloads of advertising cash. Facebook, Google and Twitter are now trying to catch a line from the advertising boat, and alienating some of the people generating the wave.

They could easily turn around and offer a paid, ad-free service, however the real damage is with their selling and sharing of your data—things such as you email address, name, age, sex, address, zip code, etc. Once sold, the Facebooks of the world cannot redact any of that information. There is no mechanism to pull your data once it is let out to a third party app or game a person tries even just once. While FB’s compliance policy says the app maker must delete your data if you remove their “free” game, there is no enforcement, nor any auditing to make sure this is actually happening. So, really, it is time for a new entity with a clean slate to start with a center that is based on serving the people who pay for the service rather than the advertisers and companies that pay lip service to privacy concerns.

The saddest part is, even when a big company such a Google or Facebook adopt practices that are gross violations of privacy or make errors that would land a person in jail, they get what amount to a slap on the wrist, and publicly apologize, saying, “it will never happen again.” But we all know that their profit-margin from either alleged “mistakes” such as bypassing a DO NOT TRACK header, or sneaking persistent ID cookies in there to follow your browsing habits far outweigh any penalty once they get caught.

For instance an executive at BP could have sat in his office knowing full well they would be forced to cough up up to 2B for gross negligence (as long as they kept their mouths shut and never admitted wrongdoing), but also the net profits will be up 50% to 15B. That 2B dollar fine is just the cost of doing business and still a 30% jump above last year. (All of this is speculation, and I haven’t even checked their numbers, but you get the idea.) The same could go on every day at a large company in the social network space as well. An executive could weigh the risk-reward ratio of any illegal action, and figure that with enough spin, plausible deniability and legal fees and decide that the penalties are far enough down the road, and that public scrutiny only lasts so long.

I see BP gas stations today and they are doing business as usual with pump prices holding steady a lot higher than before the explosion in the Gulf, because people don’t care unless it is convenient for them to. If it is inconvenient to not use a product or service that they know is from an ethically deficient company, they generally make excuses or just admit, “I don’t care” if they are a more honest person. In fact as long as their interests align, they are willing to put up with a few questionably ethical practices.

The thing is, if one of these companies deices that their quarterly profits are worth more than a permanent injury to a group of people (such as their identity being stolen and their credit destroyed) or the environment (such as sea life mutating thanks to oil dispersants used in concentrations that would affect cell replication), then you or the victim of their risk-reward calculation are fucked. Because all that will happen will be a slap on the wrist, and lip service. There is no such thing as a corporate death penalty for accidents, nor gaming the system. But there should be.

That’s why I hope Dalton succeeds. If his service takes off the ground and holds to its ethical center of “people over profit (but a profit is needed)” then companies like his will take care of killing the parasitic companies and the sociopathic companies for us. So, while I haven’t backed the project yet. I will definitely earmark part of my budget for it, and help by telling people. I do the same for any company that “gets it,” such as duckduckgo.com: because face it, Google’s “‘do no evil’ mantra” has evolved into (as George Carlin would say) “pure bullshit.”

I am not against making money, but I think no company should ever place the basis of their revenue stream at odds with sound ethical practices. If their is ever a question, then obviously you are in the wrong business or talking to the wrong people. Advertising and marketing are usually at odds with maintaining honesty and privacy, and those are the areas I would never work in. For instance: What would I say if asked to develop a system to help people find information when they want it? “Great!” Develop a system to monitor what people are doing with this tool? “Fuck off.” Why? because it’s a basis of freedom, and the word “freedom” does not mean “We will monitor what you do, so only do what we want you to.”

So, yeah, I have $50–$100 for dalton because I value people who put their business practices inline with my concerns for privacy and ethical behavior. Do you? Ask yourself if you really do too. Are you concerned enough to pay someone for this so they can erode those that are paying the numbers with your health, safety and security as their poker chips?