Monday, April 19, 2010

I've got a secret, but don't tell Google...

I’d like to pretend that I haven’t Googled myself before today, but that would of course be a lie. When I do, the only hits that actually reference me and not some other funny combination of my name don’t extend past the first page. Aside from the inevitable link to Facebook, there are links to different articles I’ve written as a freelancer (the fact that those pop up is a GOOD thing for me!) So, needless to say, I’m not exactly having my publicist do any internet damage control just yet.

But privacy online is a concern of mine, as it is for most of us in this day and age. I shred my bills, I’m conscious of what photos I’m posting, and I make sure not to accept friend requests from those mean kids from high school who probably just want to see if I’ve gotten fat since then. But even so, privacy goes beyond all of that; and efforts to keep our information private will always be one step behind those who are trying to steal it.

One of the things we most love about the internet, its accessibility, is also something that makes it a serious threat to us as individuals. Items that we put on social networking sites seem like they’re just being shared with the friends of our choosing, but these things are instantly entered into the public domain. That means anyone who may be looking for it, can see it.

Right now, this is a huge problem largely because we’re not yet used to it. The next generation of children to grow up with the internet and social networking as a more prevalent part of their lives from the start and will be able to cope better. When privacy issues are the norm, they won’t be as likely to make mistakes like posting a cell phone number on someone’s blog or forwarding a boyfriend or girlfriend an inappropriate picture.

For the rest of us, though, we need to adjust. According to Alma Whitten, Privacy Engineer at Google, this means adjusting our settings. Privacy online is all but dead, Whitten says, but users need to be proactive about protecting their information instead of just hoping no one sees it and later lamenting when they do. Google, for instance, offers several tools meant to limit how much information about a Google user (i.e. gmail) is released in a search.

Facebook has settings options as well that help to protect their users. Sarah Perez of the New York Times highlights “The 3 Facebook Settings that Every User Should Check Now” to keep their information private. Perez notes in her article that this past December, Facebook made a “series of bold and controversial changes regarding the nature of its users’ privacy settings.” The move was discussed by many news outlets, but only after the changes were made. Facebook made these drastic modifications—which basically reset everyone’s privacy settings to “viewable by everyone”—relatively quickly and quietly, as to hopefully go unnoticed. And, for many, the changes did go and are still unnoticed. Although those users might be surprised at what others are able to see about them that they didn’t intend.

So if we’re able to just click our web settings into the right place to stay protected, then why are there still so many problems with privacy issues? Aside from the fact that many users aren’t even aware that the site they’re using has changeable settings, there are some things that we can’t adjust. Sometimes it’s not about what you’re telling people on the internet, it’s about what the internet already knows about you.

Let me illustrate this point with an example. Have you ever Googled a topic; let’s say for instance Betsy Johnson purses. You click around the links that your search yields, then close out and move on to something else in your day. Hours, maybe days later, you’re at a completely different site and the ads in the margins are advertising Betsy Johnson purses. Wow! What are the odds of that? If you ask Steve Lohr of the New York Times, the odds are more than good. They’re guaranteed.

That’s because search engines and advertisers work hand in hand to make notes about you. Anything from what you punch into your search engine to who you associate with on social networking sites. After awhile, patterns develop—things you shop for often, college alumni that you associate with, political party tendencies, movie stars you hate—it all builds a kind of profile about you. That profile, or “social signature,” as researchers dub it, is how advertisers target your specific interests.

Lohr says that when the patterns in your social signature are analyzed, it could lead to more drastic privacy violations, like figuring out a user’s social security number. But for now, that’s only a “potential risk.” Even so, the Federal Trade Commission and Congress are already taking steps to, as Lohr says “tighten industry requirements” as far as tracking methods are concerned, to protect people on the web. If and when those regulations are implemented, whether they’ll work is anybody’s guess.

But, on the other hand, as much as we should fear a lack of security on the internet, should we also fear too much of it? After all, the internet is a domain for free speech, and regulations on free speech generally lead into very sticky territory.

Take, for example, the recent conviction of three Google employees in Milan, Italy. According to the judge, the three were guilty of privacy violation because their employer, Google, hosted a video of an autistic teen being bullied.

The judge’s reasoning for the verdict was that Google hosting the video would have meant a profit for the site, as they would’ve gained revenue from ads sold on the page the video was posted.

The judge mentioned that this trail should be considered an “important signal” that web masters could and should be held criminally responsible for what their sites host.

At first glance, it might be considered a good thing that this judge is the first to, at the very least, make web masters concerned about the content of their sites. And in Italy, such a statute may be upheld in the future. But in the U.S., we’ve run into this situation before, and it does not end well for the prosecution.

In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals heard the case of Zeran v. AOL, after Kenneth Zeran was bombarded by phone calls from across the country after an unknown internet user posed advertisements in an AOL chat room for a t-shirt company called “Naughty Oklahoma T-Shirts.” The products of the company featured offensive slogans concerning the Oklahoma City bombings, which had occurred just weeks prior, and people who saw the ads were of course outraged.

The phone calls got so bad (nearly one every two minutes; many were death threats) that Zeran’s daily life was drastically altered and he sued AOL for damages. In the end, the court sided with AOL, citing two major issues: Freedom of the Press (as the internet is likely the future of the press) and also the fact that the web is just too darn big. By that, I mean that with the internet as vast as it is and growing by the day, for online providers to be held responsible for overseeing everything they host is not only unconstitutional but impossible.

The judges in the Zeran case didn’t want to set a dangerous precedent where providers would be held to impracticable responsibility standards that would force them to shut down and hinder the growth of internet technology. The ruling in Milan last week, however, has the potential to do just that.

So, in other words, when it comes to privacy online, we’re walking on egg shells. Because, yes, we do want a certain level of security when we’re on the internet, but we also want to have full access to the free exchange of information that the web gives us. And when cyber crime does happen, we of course want to point our fingers at someone to blame, but on the other hand we want to keep regulation out of our internet usage, so responsibility comes at a price.

Yikes, talk about a rock and a hard place. It seems like the best thing to do, for now, would be to heed Ms. Whitten’s advice and do what we can on a personal level to protect ourselves. Jon Kleinberg, a computer science professor at Cornell University, agrees. He says, “When you’re doing stuff online, you should behave as if you’re doing it in public — because increasingly, it is.”


Internet Privacy photo by Barry D, Licensed by Creative Commons as Attribution 2.0 Generic

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Couch potatoes, rejoice! Internet TV is on its way



The only thing more frustrating than finding a good vegetarian recipe on The Food Network is finding a one and then not keeping up with the cook fast enough to actually jot down the directions. Granted, one can always check the website or rewind their DVR. But, in my perfect world, I’d like to be able to stop the Barefoot Contessa right in her shoeless tracks and have her show me a text form of the recipe, on the screen, at that moment. Because all TV should revolve around me, right?

Luckily, I’m not the only self-centered consumer out there, and the television industry is catching on to that. As you’ve likely seen in recent years, television has been slowly nudging itself closer towards the internet. The result, ideally, would be to cut the cable cord all together and broadcast television directly through the internet; making a completely hands-on and customizable viewing experience. People can hook their internet connection up to their fancy big screens, or watch from their laptop or mobile device. They can choose the programming, select from a much larger range of shows and, perhaps most appealing, do away with the cable bill.

Of all the internet ideas we’ve discussed this semester, this is probably the most exciting because it’s so young. Music seems to have settled into a selling model for at least a little while, and journalism as an industry may be in flux but at least we have a good idea of what is not working. Web TV is just making its entrance to the party, and its bringing goodies for everyone.

So let’s peek into the goodie-bag, with the help of Amanda Lotz, author of The Television will be Revolutionized. In her book, Lotz outlines the “5-C’s of the Post-Network Era.” The most obvious of those C’s would have to be choice. Web integrated TV will provide viewers with exposure to those niche markets that the internet lets us indulge in. The Long Tail will now be coming to a small screen near you… while ABC network television may bring you only Grey’s Anatomy on a Thursday night, you may choose to watch instead an old episode of the cancelled series Halfway Home, one of my personal favorites. If it’s on the internet, it’s on you TV when you want it.

Well, at least that’s the idea. The primitive versions of web-integrated TV that are being test-driven by tech-savvy people around the world can’t offer you everything just yet. Like Douglas Quenqua mentions in his New York Times article on the subject, there are those out there now who have eliminated cable companies and already rely on their internet for television. Much of the time, their satisfied with the programming available to them, but some things like sporting events or premium programming (i.e. HBO) aren’t streamed on the internet so viewers miss out on that. That may sound like a small sacrifice, but try telling that to a Detroit sports nut the week that the Tigers start their season and the Wings begin the play-offs.

Brian Stelter wrote in the New York Times back in February about the “water-cooler effect” of television, and how the internet magnifies this effect in a huge way. Stelter highlighted how instead of being a television killer, the internet is actually promoting viewership by involving viewers and bringing them together. He cited this year’s MTV Video Music Awards as an example. When rapper Kanye West interrupted the acceptance speech of singer Taylor Swift, in protest of her win, social networking sites were abuzz before the awards show had even ended. The ratings were the highest MTV has seen for the show in six years. The drama that West inspired was certainly a huge part of the show’s success that night, but it was really the viewers chatting with each other that made for such an impressive boost. What Lotz’s calls community, I’ll call the “book club mentality.” Sure, it’s fun reading a good book, but it’s a lot more fun to go to your book club the next week and chat with your friends about what you liked and didn’t like. Web TV is making a community on the other side of the TV as well. Just like access to the internet makes journalists and popular musicians out of regular citizens, that same method of exposure can be utilized by anyone to create shows and movies that can be viewed around the world. The road to Hollywood isn't as long when you use YouTube as your transportation. Just ask the guys over at Minnesota Stories about making your own TV on the internet.

Control is another on of Lotz’s C’s, and it’s one that many of us are just getting used to. The day we got DVR in my home was a truly peaceful day… no one complained about missing their shows. The days of fighting over whether we’ll watch Lost or So You Think You Can Dance were over (how we got through pre-DVR times without putting the remote through the LCD screen is beyond me.) But web TV promises control on an entirely different level, more than just time and scene control. Like I mentioned earlier, options could be available to consumers to explore similar shows, save a show for later review, or email a clip to someone’s mobile device. Alright, so I’m not quick enough to see how the Barefoot Contessa whipped out that margarita pizza, but I can stop the show, click on the link for the recipe, and email it to my boyfriend’s phone and tell him to make it. Really, is there anything better?

As we can tell from my sneaky pizza plan, I’m a fan of laziness—er, convenience. TV, just like every other media in our lives, needs to and is becoming a large part of the digital convergence movement. Through items like smartphones, laptops and digital readers, we’ve brought several different mediums together into single devices. Now, it’s time to start cutting the mediums we don’t need for simplicity sake. If we can get TV through the internet, and we’re using the internet pretty robustly, then taking cable out of the equation is a no brainer. Convergence is simpler for users, and certainly kinder of the pocketbook. Why pay two bills when you can pay one? As long as we’re talking digital convergence, it’s hard to stay away from that old stand-by, the iPhone. When it comes to customization, Apple certainly seems to know what they’re doing. The introduction of applications for their devices, what we now lovingly refer to as “apps,” is now a staple in our technological world because it gives us what we want—a world that revolves around us. Why would a consumer want an app for hockey game stats when they’re only a baseball fan? The marketplace is made up of people who think “me”, not “we.” Web integrated TV would have to cater to that philosophy. According to USA Today, it seems TV makers are more than up to the task. Companies like Sony and Vizio have hopes of releasing the first generation of web integrated TVs, marketed as such, by the end of this year.

Some are even in talks to include Yahoo! Widgets to make the TVs feel more familiar to buyers. The widgets would be on the TV’s screen like a tool bar, with icons for things like YouTube and Flickr. But if you’re not a Flickr person, perhaps the Weather Channel Icon is more up your alley. It’s all about choosing what you want, when you want it. For those out there already getting their television through the internet, these TVs made for web integration could be an exciting upgrade. But at $1,000 and up, there’s also the possibility that people will stick with their laptop and A/V cords. Whether fancy TVs are the right marketing plan is still up in the air.

What will likely play a huge part in the future of TVs marketed specifically for web integration will be the economy. But, as many have noticed (and immediately knocked on wood) is that consumer confidence seems to be slowly creeping up. Not where it should be to inspire hordes of people to spend thousands on a new television merely because it’s the hot new thing… but who knows. Maybe this Christmas I’ll have a new TV on which I can check my email during commercial breaks.

But, once those TVs go on sale, what will be the format for this internet on our internet-ready television? Web TV seems to be in the same position as journalism right now, which is trying to figure out how to make money off of something that people can get elsewhere for free. Hulu.com is one of the leading web TV networks with oddles of media suppliers and advertisers backing them, and still they’re looking for ways to make more.

If you’ve ever been onto Hulu, you know that the video selection and quality is impeccable…and that any little thing you want to watch has an ad attached to it, if not multiple ones. This has worked for Hulu so far says the sites Chief Executive Jason Kilar, because the ads are able to get to so many people.

“Aggregation works for consumers,” Kilar said. “It makes it easier to find and discover and enjoy premium content, and it works for advertisers, because with that aggregation you get greater reach.”

But now the ad companies say it’s not enough, and after years of resisting, Kilar is now considering going the route of a subscription service in addition to ad revenue. In that way, they’re on the same teeter-totter as newspapers—do we try and slap ads on everything, or do we make it a subscription and call it a day? Either way people aren’t going to like it.

To me, I think a subscription service will eventually be necessary for web integrated TV. There has to be a solid revenue base to replace cable subscriptions. And, like Brian Stelter and Brad Stone said in their New York Times article, with Comcast buying up Hulu’s parent company, NBC, it’s likely that Comcast will push (aka throw) Hulu in the direction that will “support a subscription model.” Although, as a consumer, if I were to get a subscription service for my internet TV and it came with ads that I couldn’t choose to navigate away from, I’d be utterly livid and my subscription wouldn’t last long. I’d have to think that most people would agree with that sentiment.

Then again, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe, for once, those of us in the battle field (aka consumers) won’t be the ones who make the call as to where the technology will go. If companies like Comcast, Yahoo! and Sony are making these decisions for us, we’ll just have to take what they give us. Because, let’s face it, they know as well as I know that I’m not going to go without television.


Citations

Lotz, Amanda. The Television will be Revolutionized. New York City: New York University Press, 2007. Print.


Several Televisions photo by Harmon, Licensed by Creative Commons as Attribution Share-Alike Generic 2.0


iPhone+tv photo by Clemson, Licensed by Creative Commons as Attribution Generic 2.0



Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Extra, extra! Don't count the news out yet!



It’s like a giant media teeter-totter. As the internet has become more prevalent in our everyday lives, the newspaper industry has been sinking at an equally quick rate. Coincidence? Of course not. In a poll taken by The Atlantic and National Journal, members of the national news media have said what we all know but can’t bring ourselves to say…print is dead. 43% of those polled said that journalism has been hurt by online outlets.

So its official, newspapers are on their death bed and the internet is standing overhead with a pillow, waiting to take print’s last breath. We all knew this was coming, so the debate on how to save print must end. The discussion should now turn to how do we adapt journalism to online media while sparing the integrity of the practice? Can it even be done?

President of Thomson Reuters, Chris Ahern, seems to think so. In fact, at a Federal Trade Commission workshop, Ahern told attendees that he thinks journalism will not only survive, but thrive. The key is to disconnect the actual practice with the hard newspaper. Once we do, we can embrace the new technological tools that are hurting the industry as use them to further it.

Alright, Mr. Ahern, I’m listening. So how do we do that, and what tools specifically are we talking about here? Well, there’s the obvious addition like hyperlinks, quicker updates, easier access and, not to mention free access. Blogs are certainly an avenue that needs to be explored. But when I think of blogs, I think of twenty-something know-it-all types posting political rants or funny videos of cats playing the piano (or possibly both) for their friends to read and comment on. Not exactly what I want to think of when it comes to hard news. So let’s use a different term, like citizen journalism.

Citizen journalism is certainly on the rise, and for good reason. In a nutshell, it’s a way for citizens to report on the news and events happening in their community. Those who are serious about their reporting adhere to traditional journalism standards (i.e. seek truth, remain impartial, etc) but they’re able to report from a different perspective as they are a member of said community so the news directly effects them. It’s a refreshing angle that online news consumers seem to be gravitating towards.

News outlets (or at least more progressive ones) are leaning towards this type of reporting as well. Locally, The Ann Arbor Chronicle and Grosse Pointe Today are websites that feature contributors from within the community. News outlets save money on reporters, consumers stay informed, and citizen journalists find a renewed passion for the art because they’re able to be involved in the process. Sounds like a win so far.

Even beyond community news, blogs are able to make news accessible to the larger audiences who wouldn’t normally partake because they’re able to cater to niche markets. Here we go with the long tail again. For those who find CNN too dry, there’s the Huffington Post. For those who find Fox News too conservative, there’s…uh, well anything else. People can hear what they want to hear.

And for every news story reported, there is a blogger commenting. News doesn’t have to be talked at an audience, the audience can talk back! There’s the ability tell the outlets what they want to hear, what they don’t, how they feel. Any market that exists, be it college-hipsters in Ann Arbor or senior citizen residents of the tiny town of Clawson, a citizen journalist can report on news that directly effects them. Now, like Mr. Ahern said, as soon as we figure out how to charge for this, via subscription, a la carte, etc., we’ll have overcome the hurdle.

But, as I’ve discussed in this blog before, there is a risk when news caters to niche markets. To be truly informed citizens, we cannot always hear only what we want to hear. Take the recent health care debates for example—republicans only want to hear about death panels, and democrats only want to hear about free health care for all. Clearly there’s more involved, and as participants in this democracy we need to hear ALL of it. Therefore, there still is and will always be a need for traditional (and might I add, adequately paid) investigative journalists. But how do we keep them around when journalism seems to be evolving into a more open, public domain? That, I believe, is the really exciting part.

Let me set up the exciting part with a sad preface. As many might’ve heard, WXYZ Channel 7 news decided earlier this year not to renew the contract of their long time investigative power house Steve Wilson. A similar situation happened early in 2009 to FOX 2’s Steve Lewis. They’re both talented investigative reporters, delivering invaluable news and issues to the city of Detroit. They were so good at their jobs, that their respective stations, in the wake of a sort of journalism recession, couldn’t afford them anymore.

In an interview this past February, Detroit Free Press reporter M.L. Elrick asked Wilson what he sees as the future of investigative reporting in the wake of his dismissal. Wilson insisted, of course, that the practice is vital to sound city and national government alike, but that in order to stay afloat we need to conserve our resources. He suggested the development of a Michigan Center for Investigative Reporting; a non-profit establishment that news outlets could essentially contract out for investigative matters.

While Wilson’s dream may seem like just that, he might be on to something. On Monday, the Associated Press announced that it plans to open several regional investigative teams. The idea, according to AP is to “provide reporting and presentation resources for the cooperative’s reporters around the nation.”

In other words, AP is trying to combine all the great ideas of the new journalism era--- the local angle of citizen journalism, the quality reporting we’re accustomed to, and the conservation of resources needed to stay alive in a struggling industry. Now THAT’S what we’re talking about, guys! Way to think outside the box. It looks like journalism may be on its way toward a revolution and not demise. So, to all you journalism cynics, put that in your iPad and smoke it.


Citations


The Atlantic magazine

Media Insiders say Internet Hurts Journalism

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/media-insiders-say-internet- hurts-journalism/7410/


Reuters

How will journalism survive the Internet Age?

http://blogs.reuters.com/from-reuterscom/2009/12/11/how-will-journalism-survive- the-internet-age/


Newspaper photo by Alex Barth, licensed by Creative Commons under as Attribution Generic 2.0


Rosie the Blogger photo by Mike Licht of notionscapital.com, licensed by Creative Commons under

as Attribution Generic 2.0