RE: Action

Today (week 22) I read a really interesting article in Weekend magazine about "Eli Pariser: The Filter Bubble". It's all about personalization of search results on Google (and news feeds on Facebook), and includes personalization of the Internet in general:

"Also, search engines, social networks and media are increasingly tailored to the individual user, and of course it's an intriguing thought: Fewer useless information and a network that is tailor-made for ourselves. But according to Pariser new book The Filter Bubble 'has personalization a serious downside. The more information tailored to us, the less we are presented with opposing views. The uusynlige editing of information closes us inside the filter bubble: our own personal universe of information. We decide not what comes into it, and we can not see what's being edited away.
How network plejde to be a window to the world, it is becoming a mirror that shows only ourselves. "

David Jacobsen Turner has written the article in the knowledge of style and make the subject accessible. Thore Husfeldt, Associate Professor at the IT University of Copenhagen as well as Lund, included in the article (and write briefly about it on his blog ). He has the following good point about an "algorithmic lens" which is shot in between the citizen and information. And the challenger democracy negatively:

"In the blogosphere's own creation myth was the media [radio, TV, newspapers] until the 90 controlled by a small group of powerful gatekeepers who controlled the flow of information. The editors decided what information reached the public. The media was organized hierarchically, and the communication went one way: from media to receive.
With the emergence of the Internet was revolutionized this picture. Today, everyone with a computer and the right idea to create his own mini-media, and people all over the world can freely exchange information, thus creating a global, debating public. The Internet makes it possible to 'cut out the middleman away', whether there is record companies, department stores - or the editors.
But according to Eli Pariser, the human gatekeepers simply been replaced by algorithmic gatekeepers. "

Read more at Thefilterbubble.com

STARTING POINTS

In Article 5. 3 of the EU Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications states:

"Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to obtain access to information stored in a subscriber's or user's terminal equipment is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user is given clear and adequate information, including about the purpose of treatment in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC and the right to refuse the controller such treatment. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access to information if the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network or as strictly necessary to provide an information society, the subscriber or user wants. "

It is this background which provides a framework for IT and Telecom Agency implementation of new legislation on publishers' liability for storing data on computers and mobile phones. Draft Order can be found at Borger.dk

INDUSTRY CAN STILL DO WHAT THE WISH

FDIM held an informative event on Wednesday, 16.03. at law firm Horten. The speakers are placed in general a positive view of the forthcoming legislation, as the Internet industry still has exactly the same as they already do / can do today. The only difference is that the industry must tell consumers about it. EuroPark example is already highlighted in some media [ Comon ], but I think Poul Melbye (from JP / Pol) also had an excellent point about consumers who walked down the street. What would the consumer seems to have put a chip on itself by Copenhagen Rådshusplads who registered the shops (and goods) each looked at the way and then at King's Square had been approached about the jacket they had looked to be available to a given offers. In this case it is probably fair to inform the user of the chip before, so you can deselect it.

INFORMATION AND CONSENT

During the seminar audience waited patiently for instructions on how website publishers should move on. The change in law is in principle on two things:
1) Consent. That it is given voluntarily (and is possible to revoke). That it is specific (concrete to a use and purpose). That it is informed (which means that the information is at a level that allows them to make a choice).
2) Adequate information about the publisher's data storage on the user's computer (or other device)

From IT and Telecom Agency is set for an industry self-regulation, focusing on four areas. These are:
Transparency - And here is Denmark possibly a little tougher on the information obligation.
Consent - above
User-friendly solutions - it is not popups.
Effective enforcement - remedies and penalties

JOINT EFFORTS IN THE INDUSTRY

FDIM has subsequently been put forward their three areas where the trade association to assume responsibility on behalf of its members
There comes a Danish version of http://www.youronlinechoices.com/
Preparation of the icon, so website publishers to manage its users to the above site
Draft privacy policies, which publishers can be inspired by.

FUTURE

Kresten Bay laid out sharply and said that this lovstramning simply be seen as a first step and urged publishers to think about privacy and privacy legislation into everything they do. Thomas Myrup from Microsoft came up and pointed out that waited several things in connection with Directive 95/46, which deals with the processing of personal data.
Even though the crowd really reminded Flash cookies and other tracking methods, you should not expect that kind would pass legislation.
Looking ahead, we must therefore not expect pop-ups where the user must approve every cookie that is placed on his computer. It's an important point that industry self-regulation should lead to reasonable solutions, taking into account the user's privacy and online business models.

Eric Steuer is the Creative Commons (CC) blog urged to support CC in their defense against ASCAP 's assertion that CC undermines their copyright.

I myself am a big supporter of the Creative Commons approach to copyright. One, because copyright is not black and white, but about others' use. Two, because it gives the author control over his own work.

It is useless to ASCAP claim is served cynical and mendacious, and in conjunction with fundraising for their organization. But it is in itself true that "FREE" challenges the old licensee. The control is removed from the organization to the individual and the previous business models are challenged by new ones.

So instead of defending a time there was before 1995, so should ASCAP transform their organization so it can handle the challenges of composers, authors and publishers face today.

There remains a need for administration of copyright, legal assistance, and similar work as an organization have better opportunities to perform than the individual. It may only happen under conditions other than those 20 years ago.

Computer World is one of the few Danish news media, whose weekly articles I skim through. It's not really because the news is always just sharp. Basically, I want to know what is news in the mainstream IT Denmark, which I suppose is a part of. And they do just fine.

Computer World and journalist Kristian Hansen was last night handed Media Internet Award 2010 for best netjournalistik for the unveiling of KMD and local circumvention of procurement rules and violating rules on receiving gifts. And my immediate view is that it's a deserved award for an academically strong piece of work. Congratulations!

But when I was on computerworld.dk earlier today I was surprised by another new banner. So I began to count the number of ads on a random article ( the upper front right now ). A Topbanner. An advertisement of Articles Text and RSS feed for latest news articles. Two skyscraber. An article banner. Four ads for whitepapers in the side bar and one below the article text. Two sets of Google Adsense with respectively two and four ads and at the bottom there are also five sørme partner links and a flashing icon of Adtech. Ad (blocks) located 15 different locations on a page. What is happening?
Moreover feeds from IDG courses, IT courses wizard Jobworld, Computerworld's shop and PC World.

Jens Christian Madsen wrote in Market Magazine back in May the following wise words in the article ' Banners that move ':

As a rule breaker and disrupts the banner receiver while he / she is doing something else.

But with so many ads that compete for attention, there is not anything that interrupts. So lose the banner its clout. Had it been printed, it is just before that the amount of content is so low relative to the announcement that it would not be called a news medium.

On the other hand, they may stay away from their clumsy Takeover format, so I'll be I continue to read Computer World.

The band " Elsinore "would use a picture painted by Brittany Pyle as their album cover. Rights holders of Roy Lichtenstein "Kiss V" but believes that Pyles image breaks with their copyright. It turns out that Pyle has merely used the same original source as Lichtenstein, a comic book here revealed on " Deconstructing Lichtenstein "and not Lichtenstein.

So Lichtenstein is good, while Pyle / Elsinore can not? Some claim that copyright is not so simple again:

On one side is difficult to conclude whether Lichtenstein has done more good for comics than Andy Warhol has soup (like a naughty puts it at Techdirt ). But if Lichtenstein popularization or processing of the image in the form of either change of context (art gallery) or cropping of the image is enough to claim his copyright, then the carpet under the copyright of images probably first pulled away.

On the other hand, there is yet no evidence that Lichtenstein copied another - besides that it is common knowledge that Lichtenstein was inspired by comics [ Wikipedia ]. The source of the cartoon is not revealed. So what if Lichtenstein came first and the material that Pyle has painted after, were made later? Then Pyles image a copy of a copy and thus also a copy of the original work.

Unless it is not inherited, because breach of copyright has not been done from an intentional action. Pyle has enough known to Lichtenstein's work, but the intension was not to copy Lichtenstein, but Lichtenstein original source?

Today I've seen " Copying is Theft groove "on Youtube, a video card that must stand by my comment about this tangled case.

I have incidentally story from Boing Boing .

I wonder if the Press Council are realizing that the old concept of Copyright is becoming obsolete? In their recent publication of the annual report for 2009, they write that information out from open Facebook profiles can be used freely:

"Information collected on an open profile are considered to be publicly available. Therefore, the media may use the content without asking the person behind the profile for permission first. "

The problem is that the Press Council mixed media ethics together with copyright. It is an ethical question whether it should be possible for the press to use private data a person protects against alien eyes. It's a copyright issue if it is allowed to publish a text or image. Flickr has an active collaboration with Creative Commons , which raises awareness about rights to the image.
Facebook , which perhaps has the world's largest collection of images that do not pay particular attention to the copyright of each picture. But in the "Statement of Rights & Responsibilities" star follows in section 2, paragraph. 4:

"When you publish content or information Using the" everyone "setting, it indebærer everyone, inklusive people off of Facebook, vil have two att access information and we kan groove having control over vad De do with it."

But already in section 2, paragraph 1, they have defined the right to be your own and Facebook (because it required them to publish your content to your friends).

"(..) You grant us a nonexclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use eventuelle IP content at du post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). "

(And Facebook's rights obsolete the day you delete your content if you have any doubts. See same place).

Firstly, it is not up to the Press Council to determine whether material posted on Facebook can be used freely by the press.
Secondly, I think that their distinction between an open and a closed profile is not so simple. I allow, for example. friends of friends to see my pictures, but only my friends can follow the flow on my wall. My personal data are accessible to all, as these can be found anywhere else. Since, however, I've created myself on Friend Feed and Friend Feed use as live feed on my website you can see all my postings on my wall there.

But it can be Pressenævnet simply by relaxing at new times, where content from newspapers, not hiding behind a betalingsmur is freely usable by whom it may interest - unless it is used invasive of newspapers. Or to paraphrase another of the Press Council nice formulations:
Conversely, a user can come into possession of material from a payment newspaper that has so much public interest that public disclosure outweighs the interests of the article author. The material can be in such situations will be published without causing a breach of ethical rules.

Annual Report can be downloaded here: http://pressenaevnet.net.dynamicweb.dk/Files/Filer/pdf/Aarsberetning_2009.pdf

New times
There are two events that have affected our view of life in recent years. One is the pursuit of celebrity - and with amateur entry into this world, the persecution of these people. The other is the Internet and its ability to produce, collect, manage and distribute data about you. It is the latter that has my interest.

Fear, paranoia, idealism, pragmatism, indifference, ignorance, sensationalism and more characterizes a debate about privacy on the Internet, both must deal with ethical philosophical dimensions as well as capitalist mechanisms. Information writes in the article " Would you share vacation photos with the Stasi? "in a perverse tone about how our privacy is threatened. Google and Facebook are compared with a manipulative and murderous organization, and by throwing on with examples to the right and left it exemplifies a journalistic approach to a complex problem.

Big Brother is often portrayed in a negative light. Supermarkets' collection of data using small sales ticket table reveals that the majority of buyers of Ariel washing powder also acts Lambi kitchen towels, helps supermarket not to put both things on offer in the same week. Are you afraid that a system that does not think himself wiser than you and that therefore you can not make your own choices?

Your data online is a commodity
I have for almost 11-12 years used Google as a search engine. In 3-4 years I've been on Facebook and one year is just passed on Twitter . At no time have I paid them a penny.

The Internet is here to stay. Google is here to stay. Facebook is here to stay. We use the services to surrender our data. It is our commodity in a world that is not free, but available.

It is not my intention to discuss the mechanisms of and Implications of Freeconomics [ book ] [ Wired ]. But free means paradoxically that the consumer is not completely free. The information I provide will be used to myself personally, as well as data that is added to a larger quantity, where my behavior out of the pile of others' behavior.

Legislation, relevance and myself
When I create on social media (Facebook, Youtube, WordPress, etc.), where I create and share content, so I say yes to a number of conditions. I will for several reasons. If no services had my consent, they could not publish my actions. It would be against the law and thereby make it impossible to service in its nature (possibly Penal Code § 263 and § 264, Personal Data Protection Act § 7 and § 8 and § 28 of the Administration direct reference in the Danish context, but I do not really know). The actions I make will be for their property (mostly non-exclusive). The knowledge they acquire, they can then use to improve their service.

When I search on Google, it is their intention to make the results more relevant. Their knowledge of my preferences through previous searches are assisting with this. The advertisements that appear may have a tendency to appear as relevant content. But as long as they adhere to the Marketing Act, I have no problem with it.

The Internet offers some new opportunities in marketing to target and measure our actions. Of course it must be exploited. Let me quote information when Stephan Humor says:

"The biggest problem with privacy and the internet is people's inability to handle the problem. It is a matter of technical competence. We can find again and again. Many people simply find it difficult to handle the problem, and they act before they think, "[He] refers to the debate on VHS machine detrimental impact on youth in the 80s as an example of lack of knowledge about new media.

"If people knew what conditions they go into, it would not be so bad."

Private life is a social norm
The above is in the blog based on an expression of my personal views. I'm not saying that Big Brother is good. But I think that Constanze Kurz (quote again from the Information) is right when she says:

"I think we need to invent new social norms, but also new legal rules that may prevent the technology's entry into the private sphere is perceived as something obvious,"

What my grandparents or parents perceived as privacy is not the same as I perceive as privacy. And the younger generations (critical and natural) use of social media will also affect my standards. Private life is a social norm and we are just starting to ask questions.

Klonk.dk , Orango.dk and Eof.dk has until recently been owned by private individuals. In connection with complaints of "Complaints Board for Domain Names" , all three domains have been deprived the owners and given to businesses who believe that they are rightful owners of the domain.

I recently purchased a domain name - http://www.recitat.dk/ - and in doing so I got a brochure from DK Hostmaster , which says the following:

DIFO (Danish Internet Forum) and DK Hostmaster currently has three opportunities to intervene if a. Dkdomænenavn desired suspended. These are cases where there is:

• Apparent confusion and illegal business
• Revelation and illegal activities that pose a safety or societal risk
• Typosquatting, it will say error typing domain names that get visitors to their website because Internet users type a single letter wrong in relation to an existing domain name.

But in these cases, the domains have been registered before the companies existed. So, the private owners never acted in bad faith or intended to buy the domain for resale.

In " Act on Internet Domains Specifically Allocated to Denmark "states in § 12

Registrants must not register and use the internet domain names in violation of good domain name practice.
Paragraph. Second Registrants must not register and maintain registrations of Internet domain names solely for resale or rental purposes.

Basically it is a good rule to keep the domain parasites from the dish. How in the three cases can be interpreted against the owners I am wondering face. Registrant has some obligations related to payment and that the domain should be used. In all three cases, the domains have been used, among other private email.

Although DK Hostmaster according to item 1 of its General Terms provide that they "assign and register domain names under. Dk domain on a first come, first served" principle, so the Danish state owns the domain name. It is only on loan. If the Danish government subsequently consider that others may have more benefit of the domain name, it must then be transferred to him. That's what lovfortolkningen Board of Appeals provides for and thus can no longer secure in knowing whether they may use their domain active forever.

But what kind of a balance between individuals and or companies that true? What utilitarianism is the Danish government wants to be the guarantor for? And they will also apply the practice compared to telephone numbers, license plates, training, space reservations on the train, distribution of energy, etc. etc. in the "public interest"?

I read recently an article in News com, which is about that " China will not allow domains to private . "
In China it's about censorship. In Denmark it is about commercial interests. China's policy in relation to the internet is atrocious. In Denmark, I must note that we are far from the conditions prevailing on the dot-com domain. You must have met all of the following three elements to a complaint shall be executed:

• The Domain Name Is Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in som har complainant rights;
• The registrant ikke garden eventuelle Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name; and
• The registrant registered the domain name and ice anvende it in "bad faith."

Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDRP

I am now aware that the Danish state owns the domains and that we only have them on loan. But I do not agree that commercial interests can be equated with societal interests and thus be more important than private interests.

Article from Version2 about Eof.dk: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/12124-klagenaevn-konfiskerer-html-fri-domaener
Article from Version2 about Orango: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13478-it-folk-i-oproer-orangodk-sagen-er-en-skandale
Article from ComON about Klonk.dk: http://www.comon.dk/nyheder/Ny-kontroversiel-domaene-afgoerelse-1.250247.html
Article from ComOn about Isabells.dk: http://www.comon.dk/nyheder/Dansk-domaenesynder-reddet-af-otte-arig-datter-1.241803.html
See also reports on the respective domains as long as it lasts: Klonk.dk and orango.dk

Since last week (and up) is one of the major topics of conversation on news sites and blogs that NewsCorp - personifiseret in Robert Murdoch - will block that Google indexes all of their newspapers online content (The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. and their Fox and all its sub-brands).

On the one hand, some journalists and claps his hands above the blade out from the mouth and the fight against the mighty Google will be addressed. On the other hand, network media and taking his head over the old fashioned way of viewing reality. I can refer to Ole Nørskov ( Media Watch ) on the one hand, and Danny Sullivan ( Search Engine Land ) on the other side.

TRAFFIC ON THE INTERNET

The rationale from the news media is so far right to:

Murdoch says he is not interested in the random traffic. He can see that you can tell advertisers that there are so many users of the newspaper online but he prefers loyal users who come back to the content they find interesting - and pay for it - rather than randomly roving users who do not pay for it.

But this premise is wrong. Erick Schonfeld has an article from April 2009 wrote to Google News, Yahoo News and other aggregators are not actual news, but just stand as they are in. And the news media's fear of Google in the same degree transferred to Digg, Delicious, etc. services?

And with the above article from Danny Sullivan, there's no reason to block Google. It's news consumers should be kept out if they will not pay - if the industry and therefore will believe in the business model.

Speculation: NewsCorp vs. Google

I've seen highlighted that Google in less than a year pays the last installment of a record contract with Myspace (NewsCorp) on Web Search from Myspace - see TechCrunch May 2009 . But it is not abundant conspiratorial thinking that these things should be mixed together? Myspace problem to recoup the purchase price originally paid to be found elsewhere - the music industry (nuff said).

And it is only speculation that NewsCorp could go to Bing and say that Microsoft can pay to be allowed to index the content and then market themselves to users that they - unlike competitors - have all content on the web. Firstly, it is Murdoch not especially after Google. He mentions in the interview, Microsoft and Ask in the same breath. Secondly, it's more about the newspaper business model. The subscription numbers fall - in some places dramatically. So instead of having to rely on printed newspapers, then Murdoch seeing opportunities online.

Speculation is raised after in this video on YouTube with Jason Calacanis I have seen through another article on TechCrunch .

FREE ACCESS TO CONTENT

But the idea is as interesting enough to pursue. Not in terms of going after Google. But in relation to copyright and access to information on the Internet.

Will NewsCorp (and others) managed to introduce micro payments and keep search engines out, so will the Internet as we know it today is changing its basic structure. Either the news media's suicide, because others gladly want to meet user needs for news and users do not see 'quality' of old newspapers as journalists and editors look. Or get the news media's success in taming the population to a degree the music industry has long failed with.

FUTURE

And basically I do not believe it. And it makes you probably do not either. Traditional newspapers risks in those years a bloodbath of dimensions because of competition from other traditional news outlets. Twitter is not a newspaper-killer. But it is the users' behavior, perhaps?

If newspapers fail to maintain its position as the point where I as a user go when I need to be updated and get the correct information so that their time is over. At best, they live a more humble life side by side with clean user created news media aggregators as newser.com, Yahoo / Google News and new additions to the online magazine that collects content from such niche. blogs and creates interesting sources of information.

It will mean that many people with a journalistic position and / or training must redefine their professional identity, which some people are already doing. Both by virtue of changes in the media. And because there is no need for so many paid reporters.

Google has taken a patent on their website. This means that Google has the right to a website consisting of a large search box with two buttons below it and a few links around.
The original news is available on Gawker.com . And the news is perhaps saying too much when there is a 4 ½ year long dispute between lawyers who have been settled to Google's advantage.

IBM is currently seeking a patent for a remote to twitter, blogs or updating your status, for example. Facebook, when watching television (as above I saw it first on Slashdot ).

I honestly do not know what companies think of today. Imagine if the church took a patent on the cross and the King of Denmark had secured the right to the heart. Or more seriously, if Ford had filled a patent on the car where we had so been today?

"Ford patents motor vehicle on wheels"

I understand perfectly well that investment in research and development of products is expensive and that products must be protected by some form of copyright. And it must be with an aftertaste in your mouth that Novo Nordisk require so much money for life-saving medicines that can save lives in the Third World. But without market mechanisms cure would perhaps never have been developed in the absence of business potential.

But in light of the quote about apples and ideas in the previous blog post , so it seems somewhat old fashioned to keep things to themselves. I did not tell about the two scenarios described in the report " Anarconomy "even though they are interesting enough.

One way it can go, is that some will fight for stronger legislation. Microsoft seems to have an interest in that there must be a global patent system (see article on CNET News .) It can be seen as a response to the global impact that we are under. But from a power perspective, the proposal only serves to build monopolies.
Pirate Party's success in Sweden and the growth in other European countries are actually helping to escalate the scenario of a conflict.

Another scenario that I want to be an advocate for is where Open Source is seen as a welcome competitor to the commercial. There will still be money to be made to issue guarantees (that it works). It is Open Source not true, because there really is a charge to point back to and possibly. sue. Income basis will still exist, but only manifest itself in other products or in lieu of experience. The commercial will have some opportunities to tailor solutions and focus on the specialty of general solutions in a different way than that which is free.

On the whole, I have difficulty understanding that people are so busy protecting their ideas to others to build upon them. If it's because I never even have an original idea, so it is perhaps a position with a short time, thanks. In this case it's just the idealist, who speak right now. And later it will be so cynic, whether I have become rich on the idea or not.