[ Home | Articles | Account | People | Projects | FAQ ] quick IP-tech-politics post (mostly candidate agnostic)
A long post on (very liberal) firedoglake about Obama’s local-level organizing techniques. Very long piece but worth reading regardless of your political orientation, as it seems likely to define how campaigning will be done in the future, and doesn’t delve (much) into the politics behind the candidates/movements themselves.
Key take-away: the campaign is trusting volunteers to take roles that would never have given to volunteers in the past, and using new communications technology (and training) to help coordinate them. Result: vastly increased reach and increased levels of participation and ownership. Parallels to self-organizing (potentially fragile?) open peer production communities will be self-evident to anyone who has participated in one of those. Money quote: “Movements aren’t built on individual people—they are built on relationships.” <!--<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><Work rdf:about=""><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" /></Work><License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice" /></License></rdf:RDF>-->
posting at Freedom To Tinker for a few weeks
I was recently invited to guest-post at Freedom to Tinker, formerly Ed Felten’s group blog and now officially hosted by Ed’s Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton. Ed’s been a hero for ages (dating back to at least his voting machine work, if not to his Microsoft work) and so the invite was very flattering. I’ll be there through mid-November, and cross-posting headlines and snippets here.
My first post at FTK is on a topic that got interesting to me after I saw Clay Shirky speak at the O’Reilly Web 2.0 conference: <a href=”http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/luis/political-information-overload-and-new-filtering”>Political Information Overload and the New Filtering</a>. In a nutshell, I look at some of the new filtering mechanisms that are (or aren’t) helping us deal with the deluge of political information- information that was always being created, but is only now being distributed so widely that it feels overwhelming. Sadly, I’ve got no great insight, but I think it is an area that deserves more thought and design instead of the ad hoc evolution that is creating it right now. <!--<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><Work rdf:about=""><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" /></Work><License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice" /></License></rdf:RDF>-->
saddest (truest?) conversation of the day
(me) I’m an irritating perfectionist who can’t prioritize
(me) stubborn ‘pride in work product’
(friend) lose it
(friend) that’s an evolutionary …whatchamacallit
(friend) like the appendix
(friend) a holdover that adds no value
<!--<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><Work rdf:about=""><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" /></Work><License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice" /></License></rdf:RDF>-->
computer usage data bleg
Hey, all. I’m in need of data about ‘typical’ computer usage- i.e., ‘in 2007, the average computer user spent X% of time on the internet, Y% of time doing word processing, Z% of time listening to music, etc.’ The ideal data set would have this information for a number of years- ideally going back at least to 2000 A.D. (aka ‘1 B.iTunes.’) I’ve been googling for a bit and have had no luck. If anyone can point me at such data, I’d be extremely appreciative. Thanks! <!--<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><Work rdf:about=""><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" /></Work><License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice" /></License></rdf:RDF>-->
what you can (and can’t) learn from Google’s EULA mistake
When people started complaining about the Google Chrome EULA, it seemed obvious to me that it was a copy and paste error- old language, copied into a new situation where it didn’t quite fit. But after Google explained that they had just reused language from other licenses, Gizmodo noted:
It’s not that I don’t trust Google, but the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V explanation .. seems like an odd oversight for a product in secret, heavy development for close to two years.
Explaining why it isn’t that odd might give people a little better understanding about how corporate lawyers work, and maybe even what this does (and doesn’t) teach us about Google and privacy.
First thing this teaches us: Lawyers (like programmers) copy and paste whenever they can. On the plus side, a document that is copied is usually battle-tested- so you know you’re getting something that covers all the bases, generally does the right thing, and has no known errors. If you wrote it from scratch, you might forget or overlook something, and that would be a problem. And lawyers are expensive- so if the copy and paste saves them time, it saves you money. On the down side, a copied and pasted document sometimes doesn’t fit the new situation perfectly; for example, old language could take on new meaning when the software grows new functionality- which appears to be what bit Google here. Given lawyers’ love of ctl+c and ctl+v, this doesn’t seem that odd.
(Corporate lawyers in particular are notorious for copying and pasting, to the point that some venture capital groups provide their own legal documents, since they figure your lawyers are going to be copy and pasting anyway.)
Second thing this teaches us: lawyers are human too. Your eyes glaze over after reading just one of these EULAs, and corporate lawyers who work in this area can easily read hundreds of these, all very, very similar. This doesn’t excuse the mistake that happened here- lawyers are well paid to avoid exactly this kind of problem. But at the end of the day we’re only human- after reading the same phrases a thousand times, it isn’t too ‘odd’ that sometimes we miss the wrinkle that gives the same old sentence an entirely different meaning like it did here.
Third thing this teaches us: among lawyers, programmers are notorious for doing things first and asking the lawyers to check it over later, even the night before (or the day after!) the release. I have no idea if that is what happened here- it could well be that the lawyers were consulted from day one, and Google generally seems well-organized about this sort of thing. But it is quite possible that even in a two year project like this one the lawyers were called only weeks, days, or hours before the website went live- obviously increasing the odds of a mistake like this one. Again, lawyers are well paid to do things under pressure- so this shouldn’t have happened- but it isn’t too surprising.
What this doesn’t do is teach us much about Google, Chrome, and privacy.
First, we still don’t have a great idea what other privacy problems there are with Chrome. Google may no longer be claiming to own everything you publish on the web, but there is still a lot of data going from you to them, and I for one still haven’t seen a good analysis of that.
Second, some people have claimed that this shows us that when there is a public outcry, Google will respond, and therefore there is no need for government privacy regulation. I’m not convinced government privacy regulation is a good idea, and Google may well be very responsive to market forces. But the idea that this incident shows that Google reacts to the market is fairly ludicrous- remember, what we’re talking about here is correcting a copy and paste error. So, yes, we’ve proven that when a Google lawyer accidentally gives them the ability to do something they have no intention to do, they’ll fix the lawyer’s accident. But this tells us nothing about how they’ll respond when they actually consciously choose to collect data- they famously did nothing when there were huge complaints gmail and privacy, and their response when people actually take them to court seems to be that “complete privacy does not exist.”
So was this mistake odd? Not really. But it tells us a lot more about how lawyers work than it tells us about Google, Chrome, and privacy.
what these guys need is… a trademark license!
Most screaming case for a community mark license I’ve seen in a while is the utterly cool PARK(ing) Day. Basically, they’ve got a very cool idea (probably patentable, not copyrightable) and have registered a mark (PARK(ing) Day, protected but not under copyright.) And they’ve put the thing (or tried to put it) under a CC-BY-NC-SA license, which is (say it with me, kids) a copyright license. And hence doesn’t accomplish what they want to accomplish, legally-speaking.
This isn’t really their fault; as far as I know no one has creatively addressed their needs1. Still, frustrating to see. If only there were 30 hours in the day…
that havoc, he’s such a nice young man. John McCain, not so much.
HP: very nice post. The version in my drafts folder since Friday night is… hrm. Very similar in content, but, well, less polite. One might say ‘angrier’.
I had a lot of respect for John McCain (probably would have voted for him over Gore in 2000) but over the past couple of weeks that respect has gone- I’m just sick of the constant stream of lies, distortions, distractions. To paraphrase Obama, the distortions and the distractions don’t hurt Democrats or Republicans, they hurt America, not just for one media cycle, but permanently, because they prevent us from actually talking about the issues facing the country.
If we want to have a serious conversation about the very serious problems our country faces- if we want to actually solve problems instead of just win campaigns- this sort of behavior must have consequences. I can’t scold McCain (or the media, who share responsibility) to their faces, so I’ve done the next best thing: I’ve written the biggest check to Obama that I can, and time permitting I’m going to take action myself by phonebanking. In other words, I’m trying to help McCain and his handlers face the ultimate political penalty. They deserve nothing better. (I have no illusions that Obama can magically fix the problem by himself, but if Rovians continue to win, they will continue to behave this way. So their loss is where the solution must start.)
(It is worth noting that this issue of distractions and lies should be non-partisan. Honest Republicans who actually support America as an ongoing concern, and not just a place for their party to ‘win’ more scorched-earth victories, should want a discussion of the issues rather than a discussion of lipstick. Admittedly, it might cost you this election, but punishing the Rovians now will make your party stronger in the long run. So think about it supporting Obama, or at least withholding your support from McCain and Steve Schmidt.)
To bring this back slightly to my typical topics, this is a terrific chart (using the best Tufte-ian approach) explaining who would and wouldn’t get their taxes raised and lowered under the Obama and McCain tax plans. It puts the lie to McCain’s claim that Obama would raise taxes for most Americans. Given what lawyers earn, I’d probably be better off under McCain, but I don’t need it. Chart via the awesome ben fry.
GNOME Mobile Stewardship Team
On behalf of the board, I just announced a new GNOME Mobile Stewardship Team on foundation-announce. I’m pleased with this announcement for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think it’ll help us get better focus and direction around GNOME Mobile, and obviously that is important. But I’m also excited that this is a big step towards delegation for the Board. That’s something we’ve historically been bad at, and it was my only non-legal campaign plank when I ran for the board this year. So I’m excited to see that happen- I think it’ll make both the board and the Mobile community more effective, and hopefully will provide a template for us to move forward in other areas.
Software Freedom Day event in New York City
James Vasile asked me to pass along that the Software Freedom Law Center is having a reception for Software Freedom Day. Details are at his blog (which is worth subscribing too- low volume, high value when something is said.
(I’ll try to make it, but my brother will be in town, so… possibly not.)
Deblois plays NYC!
My sister Deblois will be playing her acoustic-folk-blues-surf-rock in New York City on Friday and Saturday nights; details here or below the fold. (Some sample music here; buy here.) Krissa and I will be at both shows; let us know if you want to join us!
Deblois in Miami
This club is Joey and Gavin Degraw’s place, Danny Campbell with me on drums; we will have a great show.
Subway directions: F or V train to 2nd Ave exit 1st Ave and the club is one block below Houston St between Ludlow and Orchard.
FOAF updates: Trust rankings are now exported, making the data available to other users and websites. An external FOAF URI has been added, allowing users to link to an additional FOAF file.
Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.
If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!