Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - November 13th, '10

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002


































"Scrotal hyperthermia." – Frederik Joelving



















Blimey

Before LimeWire's executed corpse is allowed to cool the storied Gnutella client has been resurrected by a "secret dev team" and released to the public via bittorrent as LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE).

This zombie is based on the last pro beta, with the toolbars and dead server contacts removed.

The Gnutella platform was originally released a decade ago as part of a guerilla movement among pro-sharing developers in response to the court ordered hobbling of then popular Napster, so in a sense LimeWire has come full circle.

Testers say it works great.



















Enjoy,

Jack




















November 13th, 2010





TalkTalk and BT Win Review of Online Piracy Law

BT and TalkTalk have won their battle for a judicial review of the controversial Digital Economy Act designed to crackdown on music and video piracy.
Rupert Neate

The telecoms companies had argued that the law, which calls on internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal file sharing from accessing the internet, had been rushed through parliament in the "wash up" period before May's general election.

A High Court judge on Wednesday granted a review of the Act on the grounds that it may conflict with European Union privacy laws. The Government may be forced to amend the law following the review, which is due to take place in February.

The law, which would force ISPs to police illegal file sharing and suspend the broadband connections of repeat offenders, was due to be implemented by Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, next year.

Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, said the Act had serious flaws, and the debate that saw it passed in to law was attended by only 6pc of MPs.

"The provisions to try to reduce illegal file-sharing are unfair, won't work and will potentially result in millions of innocent customers who have broken no law suffering and having their privacy invaded," he said. "We look forward to the hearing to properly assess whether the Act is legal and justifiable and so ensure that all parties have certainty on the law before proceeding."

A spokesman for the BPI, which represents the music industry, accused BT and TalkTalk of putting self-interest ahead of plans to bolster Britain's digital economy.

"It's disappointing that a couple of internet service providers are trying to frustrate [plans to promote the digital economy] and resist any action being taken to reduce illegal file-sharing on their networks.

"We continue to believe that their case is misconceived and will fail. The Act remains in full force and we will continue to work with Government, Ofcom and other stakeholders to implement it."

Google and Facebook had also voiced opposition to the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...iracy-law.html





UK Copyright Laws to be Reviewed, Announces Cameron
BBC

Britain's intellectual property laws are to be reviewed to "make them fit for the internet age," Prime Minister David Cameron has announced.

He said the law could be relaxed to allow greater use of copyright material without the owner's permission.

The announcement was welcomed by internet campaigners who say it will boost small business.

But any changes could be resisted by the music and film industries who have campaigned against copyright reform.

Speaking at an event in the East End of London, at which he announced a series of investments by IT giants including Facebook and Google, Mr Cameron said the founders of Google had told the government they could not have started their company in Britain.

'Fair use'

He said: "The service they provide depends on taking a snapshot of all the content on the internet at any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to this sort of innovation as it is in the United States.

"Over there, they have what are called 'fair-use' provisions, which some people believe gives companies more breathing space to create new products and services.

"So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age. I want to encourage the sort of creative innovation that exists in America."

The six month review will look at what the UK can learn from US rules on the use of copyright material without the rights holder's permission.

It will also look at removing some of the potential barriers that stand in the way of new internet-based business models, such as the cost of obtaining permission from rights holders and the cost and complexity of enforcing intellectual property rights in the UK and internationally.

It will also look at the interaction between intellectual property and competition law - and how to make it easier for small businesses to protect and exploit their intellectual property.

The review, which will report next April, will recommend changes to UK law, as well as long-term goals to be pursued by the British government on the international stage

In a separate development, the Intellectual Property Office will trial a "peer to patent" project, which will allow people to comment on patent applications and rate contributions to help improve the quality of granted patents.

'Basic user rights'

The announcement was welcomed by internet freedom campaigners, who said the government had to redress the balance after the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which gives copyright holders the power to block access to websites hosting illegal content.

"It is long overdue. Some of our copyright laws are frankly preposterous," Jim Killock, of the Open Rights Group, told BBC News.

"The Digital Economy Act left a massive hole of missing user rights like personal copying and parody.

"It's great to have the opportunity to make the case for modern copyright that works for citizens and artists rather than yesterday's global publishing monopolies."

The Digital Economy Bill was rushed into law in the dying days of the Labour government but has yet to be enacted.

Mr Killock said he hoped the government would introduce "basic user rights" so that people could make personal copies of music and videos, or transfer them from one format to another, without fear of prosecution.

He also called on ministers to relax the laws on parody - citing the case of a recent You Tube clip parodying rapper Jay-Z's Empire State of Mind.

Newport State Of Mind has been taken down by YouTube due to a copyright claim by EMI Music Publishing Ltd.

Mr Killock said relaxing copyright laws would also give companies more freedom to innovate.

But the Publishers Association, which represents some of the big names in book, audio and digital publishing in the UK, sounded a note of caution.

Chief executive Richard Mollet said intellectual property laws had to keep pace with rapidly changing technology but he added: "The immutable fact remains that the people who generate and invest in creativity deserve and need to be rewarded."

He added: "The Publishers Association will work very closely with the Intellectual Property Office during this six month review to ensure that rights holders' interests are not regarded as an obstacle to creating internet based business models, as some believe, but rather as the foundation of the UK's world-beating creative, cultural and educational publishing industries."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11695416





FAST Furious with Judicial Review of Digital Economy Act

"A fig-leaf for their own agendas"
Dean Wilson

The Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) has heavily criticised ISPs for fighting the Digital Economy Act, suggesting they're only in it for the money.

BT and TalkTalk succeeded in getting the High Court to grant a judicial review of the Act, which calls for a graduated warning system for those accused of illegal file-sharing. This has angered many organisations working to prevent intellectual property theft, with FAST leading the charge, accusing the ISPs of working towards their own “agendas”.

“The underlying issue here is not that the Act was pushed through Parliament in the so-called ‘wash-up’ period, but that the ISPs are trying to use this as a fig-leaf for their own agendas,” said John Lovelock, Chief Executive of FAST.

It appears a little hypocritical to harp on about ISPs having an agenda while leading an organisation that is about putting an end to software theft. To suggest that FAST does not have an agenda in backing the Digital Economy Act and, in its own words, “lambasting” the ISPs who object to the questionable sections of the Act, raises eyebrows.

Lovelock called the judicial review a “last ditch attempt” by the ISPs to protect their financial interests, but the ISPs say that the Act was rushed and treats larger ISPs unfairly, since only those with over 400,000 customers are subject to the laws. It is likely that illegal file-sharers will simply join the smaller ISPs to continue downloading away, which will hardly bring about the renaissance of genuine file purchases that FAST is expecting.

FAST cited research that suggested as much as 70 percent of file-sharers would stop sharing files if they received a warning letter, leaving only “the serious, serial infringers to deal with”.

In other words, they are attacking people who might download one or two songs illegally and ignoring the people who make money from the illegal sharing of files or actively leak them in the first place.

FAST also did not state where this research came from until TechEye got in touch, when it was revealed that media law firm Wiggins conducted the report, which suggests 80 percent of filesharers would cease their activities if they received a letter.

The thing is - of course the majority of people sharing files illegally are going to stop when they receive a threatening letter. If a person is made aware that they are being watched they are going to try to be on their best behaviour, and if an organisation brandishes legal threats most people will buckle without question.

“It was always our hope that the graduated response provisions of this Act will be proportionate and drive traffic towards legitimate downloads. What can be wrong with that?” said Lovelock.

“FAST has consistently called for behaviour change. We know that when people are challenged, they change their behaviour. An inevitable part of the legislative framework must discourage people from taking the illicit route.”

The problem is that the Digital Economy Act seeks to harry and punish suspected file-sharers, which pushes the affair into greyer territory. With weak provisions for appeals in place most people will be unwilling to contest that they are being wrongly accused, allowing authorities to effectively bully all and sundry into compliance, whether or not there was any need to comply in the first place.

FAST did not take kindly to us questioning the morally grey points that the Act brings up. It said that the judicial review that the ISPs have sought is simply “to halt the legal requirements placed on them to report misuse,” as opposed to there being a problem with the Act iself.

FAST also hailed the ACTA framework, which is currently being drafted and covers intellectual property theft, including illegal file-sharing, on a global scale. Countries must sign up to ACTA on a voluntary basis, but many of the world's powers, including the US and European Union are members of the consortium.

While negotiations on ACTA are still ongoing, several potential breaches of privacy have appeared already, including suggestions that MP3 players and PCs should be checked at borders, which has not going down well with Bitkom or the Free Software Foundation.

FAST told us that ACTA could “help rights holders in the UK and other member states.” It is probably hoping that ACTA fills the void that may be created if the Digital Economy Act is found to not up to scratch in the judicial review.
http://www.techeye.net/internet/fast...al-economy-act





BT Granted Stay In File Sharing Proceedings
Ben Evans

BT have been granted a stay on an order requiring them to hand over the identities of subscribers suspected of illegal file sharing.

In a hearing at the UK High Court BT requested an order requiring it to hand over the identities of its subscribers who are suspected of illegal file sharing to be stayed. Record label Ministry of Sound hired law firm Gallant Macmillan to pursue internet users suspected of sharing its songs online, like a number of similar firms Gallant Macmillan identified computer IP addresses identitied as carrying out the activity and then asks ISPs to identify the subscriber in question. There has been a great deal of media interest of late focussed on file sharing with internet leaks following cyber attacks on ACS law another firm carrying out such work. BT have said: "We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people...the incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people's confidence in the current process. We're pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future."
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...roceedings.htm





India The Latest To Think About Kicking People Off The Internet Based On Accusations Of File Sharing
Mike masnick

A few months back, we pointed to a discussion looking at how three countries with some of the biggest movie industries outside of the US -- Nigeria, China and India -- all were thriving, despite massive "piracy." As you looked at the details of each, it showed how each industry had been adapting to a marketplace in which some of the content was widely available, but were still figuring out ways to make money (i.e., you can compete with free). However, because competing with free actually involves work, it should come as no surprise that some are seeking to implement government protectionist policies.

Gautam John points us to the news that a "High Level Committee on Piracy" in India, put together by the Indian government has come back with a variety of suggestions including a "three strikes" plan that would kick users off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) for unauthorized file sharing. There's also a suggestion that would appear to make theater owners somewhat liable for customers camcording movies. They also support preventative detention of potential pirates -- a ridiculous idea that has been put in practice in some areas of India already -- and which the US entertainment industry has encouraged. Yes, this is detaining people who might make an unauthorized copy. Welcome to pre-crime, India-style. About the only suggestion that isn't massively damaging to individuals' rights is the idea that filmmakers "make piracy unviable" by offering their movies at more reasonable prices and in more ways, so that people are more willing to go with legitimate options. They probably should have just stuck with that suggestion and left the rest alone.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-sharing.shtml





Porn Maker Sues 7,098 Alleged Film Pirates
Greg Sandoval

In a move sure to outrage both file-traders on BitTorrent networks and legal watchdogs, a well-known pornographer has filed a federal copyright suit against 7,098 individuals.

Axel Braun Productions filed the complaint Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging that the defendants illegally shared the adult film "Batman XXX: A Porn Parody." The film was written and directed by Axel Braun and distributed by Vivid Entertainment, one of the country's best known porn studios.

In an interview about the suit with Xbiz Newswire, a publication that follows the adult-film industry, Braun made it clear he's prepared to take on the file-sharing crowd.

"F--- 'em all," Braun told Xbiz. "People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced--from the cast to the production assistants to the makeup artists...So we are going after every one of them who pirates our content."

All the tough talk notwithstanding, the large number of defendants named in a single lawsuit is likely to be condemned by leaders at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Web users and tech companies. EFF leaders have taken a stand against grouping thousands of separate defendants in a single complaint. In an interview two weeks ago, Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director, told CNET: "If you lump a bunch of people together, it's harder for each individual to have their case heard and evaluated on the merits."

The law firm of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver resurrected the practice of suing individuals for copyright violations. The firm began filing complaints earlier this year on behalf of independent film studios, including Voltage Pictures, the production company that made the Academy Award winning film "The Hurt Locker."

The music industry undertook a similar campaign from 2003 to 2008.

Several lawyers, including Ken Ford, who represents Braun in the "Batman" case, have adopted a similar strategy to Dunlap's and have filed suits on behalf of adult-filmmakers such as Third World Media and Larry Flynt, the founder of Hustler.

Up to now, attorneys replicating the Dunlap method start the process by gathering Internet Protocol addresses belonging to people who allegedly shared the movie files. The attorneys then file a complaint in federal court naming the defendants "John Does." A request is made of the court to issue subpoenas to each of the Doe's Internet service providers to obtain the accused persons' names and other information. The attorneys then offer those accused a chance to settle out of court.

If a person refuses to settle, then conceivably the attorneys representing the copyright owners will sue, although that has yet to happen. Cohn and other critics of this approach say they doubt the attorneys will want to spend the money on potentially drawn-out litigation. Ford told CNET last month that he isn't bluffing and will sue.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20021438-261.html





Did Jammie Thomas Case Backfire on File Sharers?
Greg Sandoval

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was supposed to lead the major labels into a trap.

Proponents of less restrictive copyright laws predicted that the decision by the four biggest record labels to drag a single mother of modest means into court for allegedly sharing music over the Web would lead them into a legal, political, and public relations killing field.

Since 2006, when Thomas-Rasset first refused to settle the copyright complaint brought against her by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the labels' trade group, her supporters said her case would illustrate how impossible it was to definitively prove who was sitting at a computer when music files were illegally distributed over file-sharing networks. If she somehow lost her case, then it would cast a bright light on the unfairness of assessing huge damage awards on people who download music for their own use.

Many predicted the court fight would prove the futility of filing these kinds of lawsuits and discourage others from filing them.

But on Wednesday, Thomas-Rasset saw the third jury of her peers vote against her. This time, since the Minnesota native had already been found liable of copyright infringement, the jury was tasked only with determining what she should pay in damages. They came down hard, assessing an amount of $62,500 for each of the 24 songs she was accused of illegally sharing. The total she owes is now $1.5 million.

This fight is a long way from being over. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys have vowed to continue to fight. They will likely argue that these types of damage awards for copyright infringement are unconstitutional. The case is likely headed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals or maybe even the Supreme Court. But all of that is still a ways off. In the meantime, her losses are arming copyright owners with valuable credibility and precedents. After four years of legal maneuvering and three separate trials, the evidence suggests that Thomas-Rasset's case was the wrong one to challenge the nation's copyright laws.

The RIAA can now point to three separate juries that believed a fair damages amount for Thomas-Rasset to pay was respectively: $222,000, $1.9 million, and $1.5 million. The range for statutory damages for each instance of copyright infringement is between $750 and $150,000. Instead, the juries in the Thomas-Rasset trials chose $9,250, $80,000, and $62,500.

In the first trial, the judge tossed the award because he said he erred in instructing the jury. In the second trial, the judge reduced the $1.9 million amount to $54,000 and the RIAA appealed, which is how we ended up with this third trial. Should the judge consider reducing the $1.5 million amount, the RIAA can now point to three jury verdicts and argue that he is the one out of step.

Jennifer Pariser, the RIAA's senior vice president of legal affairs and litigation, said in an interview with CNET on Thursday that plenty of opponents have argued that Congress set the range for statutory damages on copyright infringement before the digital age and did so to discourage the commercial pirating of music and films. The amounts were not meant for individual users who just want to hear some tunes.

Pariser rejects the notion that the range doesn't apply in the file-sharing era or that lawmakers would necessarily reduce them now. She said the decisions by the juries in the Thomas-Rasset trials support that argument. "Ordinary Americans could have chosen figures at the lowest range of the statutory guidelines [for a total amount of $18,000] but went much higher."

When it came to proving that it was Thomas-Rasset who shared the songs, the RIAA won the first trial by showing that the 24 songs in question were shared on the Kazaa file-sharing network from Thomas-Rasset's Internet protocol address and using her Kazaa username. The jury made up its mind to rule against her in the first five minutes of deliberation, one member Wired.com.

Juries don't seem to like or believe Thomas-Rasset, another one of the liabilities in her case. On the stand, she was at times combative and even suggested that her own children or boyfriend may have downloaded the music.

As for the music industry's image, there's no question it took a beating with music fans as a result of the trials. The PR hits, however, have been mitigated by the benefits of winning three high-profile jury decisions, complete with wince-inducing damage awards. The shock-and-awe factor of those awards is sure to provide copyright owners with a powerful cautionary tale.

The music industry may have given up on suing people for illegal file sharing two years ago, but the Thomas-Rasset case has thus far failed to deter other copyright owners from taking up where the RIAA left off. A growing number of independent film studios and adult-film makers this year began suing suspected illegal file sharers at a far faster rate than the RIAA ever did. This week, Kenneth Ford, one of the lawyers representing several adult-film makers, filed a lawsuit against a total of nearly 10,000 alleged illegal file sharers. In just the past two weeks, Ford has filed against nearly 17,000 people.

Lawyers representing those filmmakers can now carry the damages amount against Thomas-Rassets into the negotiations with suspected film pirates. The copyright owners can use her to illustrate that refusing to settle is risky. The lawyers could lay it out like this: The decision should rest on simple arithmetic. Thomas-Rasset could have settled with the RIAA for about $3,000. Instead, she fought--and the least amount she's been on the hook for since is $54,000.

For copyright owners, that's a big stick to wield. The vast majority of people accused by the RIAA during its five-year litigation campaign decided to settle for a few thousand dollars. The same goes for the copyright cases brought by indie film studios, according to the lawyers representing the defendants.

Tyler Ochoa, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said that the big problem isn't Thomas-Rasset's case.

"The law is on [the copyright owners'] side right now," Ochoa said. "The notion that there is a personal use exception to copyright has pretty much disappeared in recent years."

The good news for the file-sharing crowd is that there are other potential challenges to copyright law rising out of the suits filed by indie film studios. Some of the attorneys representing those accused by the filmmakers say there's a growing number of people who say they are innocent and are determined not to settle. Robert Talbot, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, represents 23 defendants.

"I have a couple of cases that would be good to take all the way."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20021947-261.html





LimeWire is Quietly Resurrected: It's Baaack!
Sarah Jacobsson Purewal

Less than a month after its "permanent shut down," LimeWire has been resurrected by an anonymous dev team--and it's better and more powerful than before. Or, well, something like that.

According to the site TorrentFreak, a "secret dev team" stayed loyal to the Gnutella-based file-sharing client, even after its creators closed their doors indefinitely, thanks to that pesky little thing known as copyright law.

An anonymous source gave TorrentFreak the following quote:

"On October 26 the remaining LimeWire developers were forced to shut down the company's servers and modify remote settings in the filesharing client to try to harm the Gnutella network. They were then laid off.

"Shortly after, a horde of piratical monkeys climbed aboard the abandoned ship, mended its sails, polished its cannons, and released it free to the community."

The new LimeWire, known as LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE) is now circulating on download sites such as BitTorrent. Based on the LimeWire 5.6 beta (released earlier this year, before LimeWire's permanent shut-down), LPE has even been improved by its secret Frankensteins--the Ask toolbar has been unbundled, all dependencies on LimeWire LLC's servers have been removed, all remote settings have been disabled, and all the features of LimeWire Pro have been activated for free.

According to the source, "the piratical monkeys are doing this for the benefit of the community" and so there is no adware or spyware on LPE.

LimeWire was officially shut down on October 26, after a federal judge found it guilty of assisting users in committing copyright infringement on a "massive scale." The shut-down was the culmination of a four-year suit against the company, brought by the RIAA on behalf of eight major music publishers. Federal Judge Kimba Wood found the company, LimeWire LLC, and its founder, Mark Gordon, liable for copyright infringement. The case resumes in January 2011, when damages--expected to total at least $1 billion--will be assessed.

I went ahead and downloaded LimeWire Pirate Edition for *ahem* research purposes, and can report that it appears to be working very smoothly. In the event that you, yourself, would like to do some research, you can download the client here (direct link).

LimeWire Pirate Edition is currently only available for Windows users.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/21009...ts_baaack.html





LimeWire Says "Unauthorized" Applications Using its Name

File-sharing service LimeWire, which last month was shut down by a federal judge, published a notice on its website on Wednesday warning that other applications are using its name.

"We have very recently become aware of unauthorized applications on the Internet purporting to use the LimeWire name," the notice says.

"We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so. We further remind you that the unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted works is illegal."

LimeWire, in the notice, said it is taking steps to comply with the October court order that stopped the company from distributing its software.

The New York-based company was one of the world's biggest services for letting consumer share music, movies and TV shows for free over the Internet.

(Reporting by Elinor Comlay; editing by Carol Bishopric)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA0FW20101111





Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Abandons the Internet

With Napster gone legit and Limewire closed down, file sharing is being driven offline -- but that doesn't mean it will go away
Mitch Joel

The music industry cheered a very small (and mostly unheard) victory a few weeks ago when a court ruling ordered a complete shutdown of the peer-to-peer file-sharing network called Limewire.

If you've had your head in the sand for the past few years, you may not have known that since Napster closed its doors to the illegal trade of file sharing and went legit, the illicit world of leveraging everyone's hard drives to create a connected network that allows people to grab parcels of similar files and pull them together to deliver everything from music and movies to TV shows and e-books has (obviously) continued to flourish. People have a strong appetite to share (or steal, depending on where you stand with this controversial issue) music, movies, books and much more, much to the chagrin of the big entertainment companies and the struggling artists.

While the core concept of peer-topeer sharing hasn't changed all that much since Napster was first introduced by Sean Fanning in 1999 while he was attending Northeastern University in Boston, the connectivity speed and file compression technologies have advanced. This makes it as easy to grab an HD Blu-ray version of Avatar as it is a copy of Lady Gaga's latest single.

The software has become ubiquitous and simple to use, which has added to the mass adoption of these platforms.

If grabbing a file is as simple as doing a search for it (as you would on Google, Bing or Yahoo!), there's not much of a barrier for the average user to begin grabbing any and all files.

I remember asking a close colleague who uses peer-to-peer networks if they felt bad for the artists and producers who were not being paid for their work.

The response back was, "If it's online, they're giving it to me." As cold as that sounds, it is the reality behind why most people do grab files for free versus paying.

With the shutdown of Limewire, you can rest assured that newer alternatives will grow in popularity and be used just as quickly. It is very complex and challenging for a centralized organization (like government and the authorities) to attack and shut down these decentralized organizations that have no physical space, and that are usually a construct of many individuals who are connected through these virtual channels. Pushing peer-topeer networking to a whole other new and interesting level is a new form of real world peer-to-peer sharing that is happening in different parts of the world through publicly accessible USB memory sticks.

Dead Drop is an anonymous physical file-sharing network that is the brainchild of Aram Bartholl, (a resident artist at Eyebeam Art + Technology Center in New York City). While he describes this more as a creative project, Bartholl is inserting USB flash drives into cracks in walls and other public places. People, literally, sidle up to the USB key, plug in their laptops and then share or copy files much in the same way they would on the Internet. These "secret" ports are available in five locations throughout the greater New York City area, and each drive also contains a readme. txt file (which was written by Bartholl) explaining the project.

Another play on this theme is dead-Swap, which bills itself as "a game of cloak and data." DeadSwap removes the need to go to a fixed location and turns the offline file sharing system into a real-world social network where individuals secretly pass USB sticks from one person to another (in a very James Bond-ish kind of way). The passing of the data is centralized and controlled by local, independently operated SMS (text message) gateways. Leveraging a wiki disguised as a message board to figure out what is on the USB stick (or what you would like to have on it), individuals text message this centralized number, which keeps everyone's mobile device number secret, and then the participants are notified of the rendezvous.

This all sounds like a lot of work to get the latest Taylor Swift album. But, that's not the point. The dead-Swap "artistic statement" on its web-site explains the new phenomenon of physical file-sharing networks: "The new 'social Web' has fundamentally replaced the peer-to-peer Internet, and remaining peer communications technology has become marginal or even contraband as participants on peer networks face increasing legal attack and active sabotage from groups representing the interests of capital."

The Internet is dead. In order to evade the flying monkeys of capitalist control, peer communication can only abandon the Internet for the dark alleys of covert operations. Peer-topeer is now driven offline and can only survive in clandestine cells.

If you're having flashbacks to the movie The Matrix, you're not alone. Perhaps the only way that we'll derive true value from data in the future will be when that data is no longer available so readily and easily to anyone and everyone who is connected to both the Internet and the mobile platforms.

In the meantime, before we all decide if we're going to pop the red pill or the blue pill, you can't help but be curious about how projects like Dead Drop and deadSwap are helping us to rethink how we're connected, who we're connected to, and what value we derive from one another's data and information.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business...103/story.html





3D Fabbers: Don't Let the DMCA Stifle an Innovative Future
Nate Anderson

Last week, while unloading my dishwasher, I had a “eureka!” moment in which I suddenly understood why the machine had not been adequately cleaning up the cups and baby bottles in the upper rack: a small rubber tube had split open, and much of the water meant for the upper rack was spilling over the plates below instead.

In the dark ages before the Internet, this might have meant an expensive house call from an appliance repair company. Today, it means going to the manufacturer's website, digging up the complete parts list for a decade-old appliance, and then placing an online order for the small rubber part, which will arrive in a box on your doorstep within the week. Magical!

For now, anyway. In the future, even this approach will seem unbearably primitive. What if I could simply download a three-dimensional design file for the part I needed from the Internet and then print it immediately on my household 3D printer? Thirty minutes later my dishwasher could be back in business with a good-as-new plastic replacement part, though I could potentially be on the hook for a huge damage award. That's because, as the physical world gets digitized, it will face all the same intellectual property issues that have so far affected digital content like music and movies.

As 3D scanners and 3D printers plunge in cost, designers and manufacturers are going to get worried. Once they get worried, they go either to courts or to Congress. When this happened in the 1990s with digital media, the result was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and those on the cutting edge of home three-dimensional fabrication want to make sure that they're ready this time when a similar full-court press tries to convince Congress to increase intellectual property protection in the US.

“Just as with the printing press, the copy machine, and the personal computer before it, some people will see 3D printing as a disruptive threat,” says a new report (PDF) out today from the group Public Knowledge. “Similarly, just as with the printing press, the copy machine, and the personal computer, some people will see 3D printing is a groundbreaking tool to spread creativity and knowledge. It is critical that those who fear not stop those who are inspired.”

"If the 3D printing community waits until that day to organize, it will be too late."

Meet the RepRap

The community is already preparing for the battle. Dr. Adrian Bowyer of the UK was the brains behind the RepRap, the "Replicating Rapid Prototyper" that can make many of the key parts needed to build another RepRap. Before devices like RepRap, commercial 3D printers cost upwards (sometimes far upwards) of $250,000.

"I changed that," says Bowyer. With the six-year-old RepRap, hackers can build a basic 3D printer for a few hundred dollars. The project has been a success, spawning RepRap hobbyist groups around the world, and there are more RepRaps in operation now than all commercial 3D printers sold over the last three decades.

The first design, called Darwin, was top-heavy and could be tricky to build. A simplified second-generation RepRap called Mendel appeared last year.

Bowyer is fully aware of the fact that his devices, by democratizing 3D printing, have "radical implications for intellectual property law," and he has delved into the subject of IP law as a result of his creation's success.

Different laws in different parts of the world will have real effects on 3D printing hobbyists as the movement grows. Say your kid's birthday is coming up, so you visit a site like Thingiverse, where people upload and alter 3D designs for these printers. You download a frictionless UFO toy file, you customize it with little Johnny's name, you print it out in plastic and color it, and you give it to little Johnny for his birthday.

Fine—unless the UFO design was made from a patented toy. In Europe, Bowyer says that patent law allows people to privately copy patented devices, so long as they don't try to sell it. But in the US, that's not the case, and patent law has no "fair use" exemptions.

"Big Toy" is unlikely to kick down your door searching for patent infringement, but companies are much more likely to eventually file suit against sites like Thingiverse if users start uploading patented designs. And one can only imagine what the sites that don't even care about legality will look like.

In a paper published earlier this year, Bowyer illustrates just how broad these questions will be: "Tempting as it may be to copy and use a picture of a well-known cartoon character, the resulting cards would very likely be an infringement of the copyright and perhaps trade marks owned by the relevant rights holder. But what if someone uses a printer capable of producing a mobile phone cover bearing such an image? Or reproducing a distinctively-styled piece of kitchenware? What about printing out a spare wing-mirror mount for your car? Do these uses infringe IP rights?"

Companies have little to worry about so far from projects like RepRap, which prints in plastic that can cost $10 per kilogram. But Bowyer is already at work on a scheme to let his RepRaps use "home-recycled plastic," and he sees a day not far off where rightsholders try to use DRM to lock down design files and demand that machines like RepRap somehow respect rightsholder restrictions.

The new new thing

Tiffany Rad works with a hackerspace lab in Herndon, Virginia, which has two commercial 3D printers—one in monochrome and one in color. While the ABS plastic products coming off a RepRap can take half an hour to make and can be a bit crude, the full-color commercial 3D printers are marvels to behold.

Couple such a 3D printer with a 3D scanner and you've got all the tools you need to do some serious copying of industrial designs. Rad sees this as a type of format shifting, and she notes that most patents cover only the "utility" of an object, not its design. Copying the shape of a particularly cool lamp stand, for instance, would probably not get you into trouble; replicating the way a patented device functions (and commercial 3D printers can already do things like produce working ball bearing joints) and you could be in real trouble.

"I haven't seen a great deal of litigation," says Rad, but she too worries about the issues and doesn't want to be caught unprepared as rightsholders push the courts and Congress to extend protections to offer great protection to designs. Such design protections do exist—the DMCA itself included the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act for boats—and there has sometimes been talk of extending design protections to things like fashion.

Public Knowledge attorney Michael Weinberg admits he "doesn't have an easy answer" about how the law should answer all of these emerging questions, but he suggests that much will depend on the analogies that win out. Is a 3D CAD file more like a blueprint, which has limited copyright protection, or more like a photograph, which has tremendous protection, even from derivative works, the moment it's taken?

Back in 2007, when we covered the Fab@Home 3D printer project out of Cornell University (also on its second model now), we wrapped up the piece by pondering just what the democratization of objects might mean for the world: "If it can do for plastic products what cheap digital tools have done for music and film creators, then the future will be a world filled with very cool toys, gadgets, and action figures. It will also be a future in which creative inventors in developing nations, the kind of people who would never have had access to fabrication plants, can suddenly turn their ideas in reality. It will be a future in which the real world becomes a set of digital downloads, and it's not too great a stretch to imagine that iTunes one day will sell 3D models alongside its other digital goodies."

That's the future that Public Knowledge wants to preserve, but its "access to knowledge" approach is sure to run into complaints from IP rightsholders, just as it does today over digital media issues. Still, when that happens, the 3D fabbers want to be prepared—and they want to make sure that Congress actually understands the tech in question and its potential before it hears the horror stories about piracy.

"The community must work to educate policy makers and the public about the benefit of widespread access," Weinberg concludes in his report. "That way, when legacy industries portray 3D printing as a hobby for pirates and scofflaws, their claims will fall on ears too wise to destroy the new new thing."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ive-future.ars





Sifonr Inexplicably Combines P2P File Sharing & Video Chat
wconeybeer

A new peer-to-peer file-sharing service is allowing users to not only share pictures, audio clips, and videos, but also encourages real-time chat via text and webcams.

Sifonr uses Adobe Flash to give users access to a video communication feed with just a single click of the mouse. In addition to the chat features, users can also embed their “Sifon” (the name for the live video feed) into a blog or on Facebook to encourage others to join in.

“Sifonr is about sharing your thoughts and ideas, kinda like on YouTube, only in a more direct and more involved way”, Floze says. “For me it means the simple and logical ‘next step’ of today’s web-interaction, even if it turns out to be ‘only’ an interesting social experiment in the end. The borders between author and reader, artist and beholder, broadcaster and consumer have diminished ever since I can remember. Now with Sifonr you are always both at the same time. Just passively enjoy it, or be an active part of it.”

There is no limit to how many people can join in on a single Sifon other than however many it takes to join until the quality of the feed degrades. The files are transferred in pieces, just like in other P2P clients, but size is limited to around 1GB for now due to the way Adobe handles data within system memory rather than on the storage drive.

The service is still in its first phases of starting up, and is warning readers to be cautious due to the lack of video moderation that could leave viewers with a bit more flesh than they would like to see. Also, users will have to install Adobe Flash Player 10.1 since earlier versions do not contain the necessary P2P support.

While the premise for Sifonr sounds great, you won’t see me sharing files on a Sifon anytime soon. The idea of streaming video of oneself while sharing files just seems like a bad situation waiting to happen. With all of the John Doe P2P cases piling up in courtrooms lately, it seems like this would be a great way for accusers to more easily put a personal identity with an IP address. Assuming you are not infringing on a copyright it should be fine, but I would prefer to share my files more discretely nonetheless.

Will you try Sifonr? Let us know in the comments.
http://www.myce.com/news/sifonr-inex...eo-chat-36332/





E.U. Sees No Need for Net Neutrality Regulations
Kevin J. O'Brien

Europe has sufficient legal safeguards in place to prevent the Continent’s telephone operators from selectively managing consumer access to the Internet and no new restrictions are needed, the European commissioner responsible for telecommunications said Thursday.

During a speech in Brussels, Neelie Kroes, the commissioner for the bloc’s digital agenda, said the panel had opted to take a wait-and-see approach on the so-called network neutrality issue, which has become the focus of intense lobbying by operators, online businesses like Google and free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic.

“We have to avoid regulation which might deter investment and an efficient use of the available resources,” Mrs. Kroes said at a summit meeting on net neutrality held by the commission and European Parliament.

The desire for operators to control traffic on their networks or to pass on the costs to the biggest users — or to the traffic generators themselves — has grown as the popularity of video and file-sharing has exploded.

Ms. Kroes’s remarks were her first on the subject following a four-month public comment period that ended in September.

Ms. Kroes, formerly the E.U.’s competition commissioner, said she would work to ensure that a set of 2009 revisions to Europe’s main telecommunication law would maintain open and fair Internet access. The legal overhaul, which takes effect in May, will require national regulators to define “reasonable” network management practices.

The law also prevents operators from blocking or slowing specific Internet services or Web sites, and requires phone companies to disclose their network management practices to consumers.

Regulators have the option of setting minimum levels of broadband service to prevent operators from downgrading basic service to encourage the sale of costlier packages.

“We will make sure these provisions are applied in all member states in a coordinated and coherent way,” she said, adding that she planned to wait a “reasonable period” for compliance before considering whether more regulation was needed.

Should operators and regulators ultimately fail to cooperate, Ms. Kroes said she was prepared to pursue legal remedies that may allow consumers to quickly switch operators should one block or downgrade broadband service. Currently in Europe, most telecom operators require consumers to sign one- or two-year service contracts.

The commission’s telecommunications advisory group, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, noted in September that operators in more than a dozen countries had slowed or blocked services from file sharing sites or rivals, like Skype, the voice-over-Internet service that lets consumers avoid mobile calling charges.

Most of the practices were halted, Berec noted, after they were made public.

Ms. Kroes, a Dutch economist, mentioned during her speech that she had used Skype to call her family last weekend. She advised consumers who were unhappy to leave operators that block, slow or place unacceptable extra charges on VOIP services like Skype.

“There were 21 million people using Skype alongside me,” Ms. Kroes said. “That is a huge market. And I say to those people who are currently cut off from Skype: Vote with your feet and leave your mobile provider.”

But her remarks also suggested that commission was not going to take action against operators such as France Télécom, Deutsche Telekom and others that are currently charging their mobile customers an extra €10 to €15, or $14 to $21, a month to use VOIP service.

Skype has called the extra charges a form of “economic discrimination.”

“We should allow network operators and services and content providers to explore innovative business models,” Ms. Kroes said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/te...12iht-net.html





'Net Pioneers: Open Internet Should be Separate

A paper released late Thursday applauds the FCC for examining net neutrality and managed services
Grant Gross

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission should allow for an open Internet separate from specialised services that may prioritise IP traffic, a group of Internet and technology pioneers have recommended.

The document, filed in response to an FCC request for public comments on proposed network neutrality rules, steers clear of recommending what rules should apply to the open Internet. But the distinctions between the open Internet and specialised Internet Protocol services, if allowed, need to be "defined clearly," the group of 32 Internet experts said in comments to the FCC.

"If a service provides prioritised access to a particular application or endpoint/destination, it is not an open Internet service," the group said. "Representations as to capacity and speed for the Internet must describe only capacity and speed allocated to Internet service."

The group's paper also suggested that little network management would be needed on the open Internet, if separate specialised services exist.

Among the tech experts signing the document are Steve Wozniak, cofounder of Apple; Bruce Perens, founder of the open-source software movement; Clay Shirky, an author and lecturer at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program; and David Reed, a contributor to the development of TCP/IP and an adjunct professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab. The group praised the FCC for examining the role of specialised, or managed, services in the ongoing debate over net neutrality rules.

Public comments were due Thursday in response to FCC questions on whether proposed net neutrality rules, prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing IP traffic, should apply to specialised services and to mobile carriers. Google and Verizon Communications suggested that specialised services and mobile carriers be exempted from net neutrality rules in a joint proposal released in August, and many pro-net neutrality groups criticised Google for backing the exemptions.

Some net neutrality advocates are concerned that specialised IP services will "cannibalise the capacity or the content of the Internet," said Chris Riley, policy counsel at Free Press, a digital rights group supporting stronger rules. "We're worried that this is going to become an unlimited exemption from nondiscrimination."

But Free Press agrees with the document, in that it suggests an open Internet should be free from traffic prioritisation, Riley said. The paper also recognises that specialised services shouldn't replace the open Internet, he noted.

A "truth-in-labeling" proposal from the FCC and a requirement that specialised services be significantly different from the Internet could help protect broadband customers, said David Isenberg, a telecom consultant and author of the 1997 paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network.

"If a user of a service thinks he/she is getting the open Internet, but instead is getting a managed service, that would be detrimental," said Isenberg, who signed the group's paper. "It would also be detrimental if the open Internet were throttled, slowed, or was not subject to upgrade on the same path as managed services."

MIT's Reed said he's more concerned about efforts by broadband providers to discriminate against some Web traffic than by competition from specialised services.

"Today the open Internet is allocated a fraction of the capacity delivered over broadband services over fiber and coax by the providers, yet users and services (such as TV and telephony) are migrating to the open Internet and away from those specialised services," he said by e-mail. "There's a good reason -- there are better, more innovative services on the open Internet than any one provider can build itself."

The paper also questioned the need for heavy network management when specialised IP services carry priority traffic, unless broadband providers weren't delivering on their bandwidth promises.

The FCC's proposed net neutrality rules would allow for "reasonable network management," but there's an ongoing debate over what the term means.

The open Internet would not require network management "unless the congestion was caused by less capacity being available than the provider offers to subscribers," the Internet pioneers' paper said. "It would only be made necessary by the fact that the capacity represented as available by the providers is not available in fact."

Broadband providers have suggested they need to manage networks to protect customers from so-called bandwidth hogs. Reed and Isenberg both protested the term.

"Other names for them would be power users, Internet enthusiasts, and harbingers of tomorrow's median user," Isenberg said. "They're predictable, just as bandwidth hogging events are predictable, so if an Internet access company does not provision for such events, they're offering an inferior product."
http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/arti...ould_separate/





In the Grip of the New Monopolists

Do away with Google? Break up Facebook? We can't imagine life without them—and that's the problem
Tim Wu

How hard would it be to go a week without Google? Or, to up the ante, without Facebook, Amazon, Skype, Twitter, Apple, eBay and Google? It wouldn't be impossible, but for even a moderate Internet user, it would be a real pain. Forgoing Google and Amazon is just inconvenient; forgoing Facebook or Twitter means giving up whole categories of activity. For most of us, avoiding the Internet's dominant firms would be a lot harder than bypassing Starbucks, Wal-Mart or other companies that dominate some corner of what was once called the real world.

The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free market is supposed to look like—competition in its purest form. So why does it look increasingly like a Monopoly board? Most of the major sectors today are controlled by one dominant company or an oligopoly. Google "owns" search; Facebook, social networking; eBay rules auctions; Apple dominates online content delivery; Amazon, retail; and so on.

There are digital Kashmirs, disputed territories that remain anyone's game, like digital publishing. But the dominions of major firms have enjoyed surprisingly secure borders over the last five years, their core markets secure. Microsoft's Bing, launched last year by a giant with $40 billion in cash on hand, has captured a mere 3.25% of query volume (Google retains 83%). Still, no one expects Google Buzz to seriously encroach on Facebook's market, or, for that matter, Skype to take over from Twitter. Though the border incursions do keep dominant firms on their toes, they have largely foundered as business ventures.

The rise of the app (a dedicated program that runs on a mobile device or Facebook) may seem to challenge the neat sorting of functions among a handful of firms, but even this development is part of the larger trend. To stay alive, all apps must secure a place on a monopolist's platform, thus strengthening the monopolist's market dominance.

Today's Internet borders will probably change eventually, especially as new markets appear. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are living in an age of large information monopolies. Could it be that the free market on the Internet actually tends toward monopolies? Could it even be that demand, of all things, is actually winnowing the online free market—that Americans, so diverse and individualistic, actually love these monopolies?

The history of American information firms suggests that the answer to both questions is "yes." Over the long haul, competition has been the exception, monopoly the rule. Apart from brief periods of openness created by new inventions or antitrust breakups, every medium, starting with the telegraph, has eventually proved to be a case study in monopoly. In fact, many of those firms are still around, if not quite as powerful as they once were, including AT&T, Paramount and NBC.

Internet industries develop pretty much like any other industry that depends on a network: A single firm can dominate the market if the product becomes more valuable to each user as the number of users rises. Such networks have a natural tendency to grow, and that growth leads to dominance. That was the key to Western Union's telegraph monopoly in the 19th century and to the telephone monopoly of its successor, AT&T. The Bell lines simply reached more people than anyone else's, so ever more customers came to depend on them in a feedback loop of expanding market share. The more customers they reached, the more impervious the firm became to challengers.

Still, in a land where at least two mega-colas and two brands of diaper can duke it out indefinitely, why are there so many single-firm information markets? The explanation would seem to lie in the famous American preference for convenience. With networks, size brings convenience.

Consider that, in the late 1990s, there were many competing search engines, like Lycos, AltaVista and Bigfoot. In the 2000s, there were many social networking sites, including Friendster. It was we, collectively, who made Google and Facebook dominant. The biggest sites were faster, better and easier to use than their competitors, and the benefits only grew as more users signed on. But all of those individually rational decisions to sign on to the same sites yielded a result that no one desires in principle—a world with fewer options.

Every time we follow the leader for ostensibly good reasons, the consequence is a narrowing of our choices. This is an important principle of information economics: Market power is rarely seized so much as it is surrendered up, and that surrender is born less of a deliberate decision than of going with the flow.

We wouldn't fret over monopoly so much if it came with a term limit. If Facebook's rule over social networking were somehow restricted to, say, 10 years—or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority—the very idea of monopoly might seem almost wholesome. The problem is that dominant firms are like congressional incumbents and African dictators: They rarely give up even when they are clearly past their prime. Facing decline, they do everything possible to stay in power. And that's when the rest of us suffer.

AT&T's near-absolute dominion over the telephone lasted from about 1914 until the 1984 breakup, all the while delaying the advent of lower prices and innovative technologies that new entrants would eventually bring. The Hollywood studios took effective control of American film in the 1930s, and even now, weakened versions of them remain in charge. Information monopolies can have very long half-lives.

Declining information monopolists often find a lifeline of last resort in the form of Uncle Sam. The government has conferred its blessing on monopolies in information industries with unusual frequency. Sometimes this protection has yielded reciprocal benefits, with the owner of an information network offering the state something valuable in return, like warrantless wiretaps.

Essential to NBC, CBS and ABC's long domination of broadcasting was the government's protection of them first from FM radio (the networks were stuck on AM) and later from the cable TV industry, which it suppressed for decades. Today, Verizon and AT&T's dominance of wireless phone service can be credited in part to de facto assistance from the U.S., and consequently their niche is probably the safest in the entire industry. Monopolies may be a natural development, but the most enduring ones are usually state-sponsored. All the more so since no one has ever conceived a better way of scotching competitors than to make them comply with complex federal regulation.

Info-monopolies tend to be good-to-great in the short term and bad-to-terrible in the long term. For a time, firms deliver great conveniences, powerful efficiencies and dazzling innovations. That's why a young monopoly is often linked to a medium's golden age. Today, a single search engine has made virtually everyone's life simpler and easier, just as a single phone network did 100 years ago. Monopolies also generate enormous profits that can be reinvested into expansion, research and even public projects: AT&T wired America and invented the transistor; Google is scanning the world's libraries.

The downside shows up later, as the monopolist ages and the will to innovate is replaced by mere will to power. In the 1930s, AT&T took the strangely Luddite measure of suppressing its own invention of magnetic recording, for fear it would deter use of the telephone. The costs of the monopoly are mostly borne by entrepreneurs and innovators. Over the long run, the consequences afflict the public in more subtle ways, as what were once highly dynamic parts of the economy begin to stagnate.

These negative effects are why people like Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis and Thurman Arnold regarded monopoly as an evil to be destroyed by the federal courts. They took a rather literal reading of the Sherman Act, which states, "Every person who shall monopolize…shall be deemed guilty of a felony." But today we don't have the heart to euthanize a healthy firm like Facebook just because it's huge and happens to know more about us than the IRS.

The Internet is still relatively young, and we remain in the golden age of these monopolists. We can also take comfort from the fact that most of the Internet's giants profess an awareness of their awesome powers and some sense of attendant duty to the public. Perhaps if we're vigilant, we can prolong the benign phase of their rule. But let's not pretend that we live in anything but an age of monopolies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...311538482.html





Why Don't Americans Want Broadband?
Nate Anderson

Hard as it might be for Webheads to believe, a significant fraction of the US population doesn't use the Internet at home. In fact, 23 percent of all US households report that no one in the home uses the Internet anywhere. Why not? A detailed new study from the Department of Commerce reminds us: many people don't see the need for this "Internet" thing at all.

Commerce parsed a big batch of US Census Data, most recently from late 2009, on US Internet use, and found that in general, it has exploded. Between 2001 and 2009, broadband usage in the US increased sevenfold, but a significant number of people just don't see the need.

The chart below shows the reasons reported in 2009 for not using broadband at home. Sixty-four percent of all US households now have broadband; among those that don't, the biggest reason is a lack of interest, followed by cost. As the Commerce report notes, "This means that a perceived lack of value or need was a more significant factor than affordability for non-use of broadband Internet services."

Also interesting: availability is no longer a serious issue for adoption, except insofar as limited competition affects the price of the service.

A few of these non-broadband households do actually have Internet access, usually through dial-up. The survey found that 5 percent of US households still subject themselves to dial-up, though the number continues to decline. "Dial-up users, on average, were older, had lower levels of family income and education, and were more likely to reside in rural areas," says the report.

What might convince more the holdouts to sign up for broadband? The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Oracle, and Facebook among its members, says the answer is, um, net neutrality?

"More folks are likely to sign up for broadband connections if the FCC assures them of an open Internet, where they can have access to everything, including video, online," said VP Cathy Sloan. "Yes, net neutrality rules will absolutely encourage broadband adoption."

This is more than a little hard to believe. Net neutrality means little to those who say they are "not interested" in the Internet, and it wouldn't lower broadband prices or provide a computer to those without one—the three biggest categories of broadband non-adopters.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-broadband.ars





Cable Subscribers Flee, But is Internet to Blame?
Peter Svensson

TV subscribers are ditching their cable companies at an ever faster rate in the past few months, and many of them aren't signing up with a satellite or phone competitor instead.

Their willingness to simply go without pay television could be a sign that Internet TV services such as Netflix and Hulu are finally starting to entice people to cancel cable, though company executives say the weak economy and housing market are to blame.
Third-quarter results reported this week by major cable and satellite TV companies show major losses, but don't settle the question of what's causing them.

If "cord-cutting" in favor of Internet video is finally taking hold, that has wide-ranging implications. Consumers who use the Internet to get their movies and TV shows bypass not just the cable companies, but the cable networks that produce the content. The move could have the same disruptive effect on the TV and movie industries as digital downloads have already had on music.

A few weeks ago, the CEO of phone company Verizon Communications Inc. likened cord-cutting to what started happening to the local-phone companies five or six years ago, when people started giving up their landlines in favor of relying solely on their cell phones.

"The first thing when that happens is you deny it," Ivan Seidenberg said. "I know the drill. I have been there."

On Thursday, Time Warner Cable Inc.'s chief operating officer, Landel Hobbs, said the company doesn't see evidence of people dropping cable in favor of the Internet. He said the biggest subscriber losses have been among people who don't have cable broadband services; high-speed Internet — from cable or a competitor — is key to watching video online. These people seem to be going to satellite or giving up on pay TV entirely.

On the theory that college students might be among the first to drop cable TV, the company looked at changes in subscriber figures in college towns such as Austin, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio. They weren't out of line with previous years, and they corresponded to the level of student enrollment, he said.

"We'll continue to monitor cord-cutting, but haven't found evidence where you might expect to see it," Hobbs told analysts on a conference call.

Time Warner Cable lost 155,000 video subscribers in the July-September quarter, compared with 64,000 a year ago.

The only larger cable company, Comcast Corp., reported last week that its subscriber loss more than doubled in the third quarter, to 275,000. Comcast said many of those leaving had taken advantage of low introductory rates that the company offered last year when the analog TV broadcast network was shut down.

Of the satellite companies, DirecTV gained subscribers and Dish Network Corp. lost them. On a conference call Friday, Dish CEO Charlie Ergen said the Internet was making itself noticed as a competitor.

"You know, my kids think I'm crazy for being in the pay-TV business because they don't pay for TV. They don't pay for movies," Ergen told analysts.

The country's eight largest publicly traded pay-TV companies, representing about 85 percent of the subscriber total, had reported their results for the third quarter by Friday. These cable, phone and satellite companies showed a combined gain of 66,700 video subscribers, or a 0.3 percent increase at an annualized rate, about a third the growth of the population.

The figure was a slight recovery from the seasonally weak second quarter, when they gained just 12,400 subscribers. But it's far short of the 401,300 subscribers gained a year ago.

Missing from the tally is the third-largest cable company, Cox Communications, which is privately held and doesn't report subscriber counts publicly. If it lost cable subscribers at the same rate as Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nine largest pay-TV companies had zero net gain for the latest quarter and lost subscribers in the second.

Cable companies have been losing video subscribers for some time, but they have been compensating by upgrading basic subscribers to more expensive digital tiers, as well as adding broadband and phone subscribers.

However, both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems Corp. lost digital video subscribers in the third quarter. Both added record-low number of phone subscribers, as years of growth are coming to an end.

Meanwhile, Netflix Inc.'s streaming service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours, according to Sandvine Inc., a Canadian company that supplies traffic-management equipment to Internet service providers.

A variety of gadgets can send Netflix's streams to the living room TV, including game consoles and the $99 Apple TV box. Many high-end TVs now come with the built-in ability to play Internet content.

Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family's Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn't a lot of live sports to be had online.

"The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn't justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that's twelve hundred dollars a year," Clancy said. "Twelve hundred dollars is ... near a vacation."

But Clancy — who has no relation to the thriller writer — is also an example of the hurdles cord cutters face. He uses an Internet-connected Blu-ray player to get Netflix movies to the TV. And he pulls a cable from his computer to the TV for Internet content Netflix doesn't have. Clancy owns a computer consulting firm and is tech-savvy enough to do all that. Most people wouldn't know how.

Cablevision wanted to raise Clancy's Internet bill when he canceled TV service. That would have made cord-cutting less attractive, but he happens to live in an area where Verizon provides Internet service at speeds that are comparable with the best cable has to offer. He got a better deal from Verizon and switched to that provider.

Most people who have the technological skills to take advantage of Internet video find that the selection of movies and shows isn't broad enough to make the jump worth it, Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said.

On the other hand, poor people have an excellent motive to cut cable and simply replace it with an antenna or nothing at all, he said.

"The price of cable TV has risen to the point where it's simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes," Moffett said. "The evidence suggests that what we're seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon."

In addition, high unemployment means fewer new households, as kids are probably delaying moving out of their parents' houses, or people move in with roommates. That can reduce the number of households that pay for TV.

Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.

Content providers now get billions of dollars in fees from cable service providers, and they want to make sure that whatever new industry model comes along, they'll get paid. It's not obvious yet that Internet video will let them sustain their profit levels.

Six companies create the content that consumes 85 percent of U.S. viewing hours, Moffett said. "Until they get on board, the train's not leaving the station."
http://www.newstimes.com/business/ar...ame-798549.php





Cable Companies' $46+ Billion Robbery -- Subscribers Have Been Ripped off for $5 a Month Since 2000
David Rosen and Bruce Kushnick

When cable television subscribers open their monthly bills they will not see a charge for the “Social Contract.” Since the mid-1990s, it appears that every cable subscriber has shelled out $1 per month increasing to $5 a month by 2000 to subsidize cable companies’ system upgrades. There has been no accounting for the total monies raised through this subsidy nor a thorough assessment of whether the cable operators fulfilled the system upgrades (including wiring and services to public institutions) the subsidy is suppose to underwrite.

We estimate that the total Social Contract or “social con” ripoff has cost American cable subscribers $46 billion. But the true costs of the social con could be much higher, as the cable companies may have “double billed” on their construction upgrades. These new construction payments underwrote cable operators implementing multiple revenue streams and a monopoly on their wires. This helped cable companies to now offer broadband, Internet, telephone and other services.

As of this writing, the Social Contract is a black hole, with no audit trails, no removal of a charge that seems to have ended up a perpetual cash machine. We call upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Congress and state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) to provide a thorough, complete and transparent assessment of the Social Contract.

On September 24, 1997, the FCC’s then-chairman Reed Hundt testified before Congress on the Social Contract. As he reported, “The Commission has found social contracts to be a useful tool for providing for the upgrade of cable facilities allowing operators to expand service offerings.” And added, “the Commission's social contracts have allowed recovery for upgrades only through adjustments to rates charged for cable programming services tiers, the tiers that are within the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction.”

Surely, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is turning in his grave over the systematic misuse of his coveted concept of political freedom. Over the two-and-a-half centuries since his classic work, Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right, was published in 1762, the concept has been appropriated for all manner of misuse. From a concept that acknowledged the human relations that underwrites modern democracy, this Social Contract has become just another scam through which huge corporations rip off the public.

***

The FCC adopted the concept of the “Social Contract” on November 30, 1995. It is intended “to provide rate stability, improved quality of service, and incentives for upgrades and system improvements.” Under the contract, cable operators agreed to commit significant capital to upgrade their cable systems and offer what is known as a “cable programming service tier” (CPST), which are basic services and allow subscribers either to rent or purchase a converter box. In return, the FCC gave cable operators guaranteed subscriber rate increases and new programming tiers at higher rates. The rate increase was, in effect, a $1 tariff per month per subscriber to recover the capital investment, and that appears to have increased each year to $5 per month by 2000.

The Social Concept was formally institutionalized with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This landmark act, which was created through a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton with much fanfare, was intended to end (in Hundt’s words) “nearly 100 years of monopoly and restricted entry in communications and replaced them with a national commitment to open markets, competition and deregulation.” In the decade and a half since its passage, “deregulation” has led to the re-monopolization of the communications industry, the establishment of the telecommunications trust. Ironically, this deregulation was also given to the cable monopolies with the idea that they would compete with the phone companies.

The Social Contract was an unstated effort by the FCC to help subsidize the deployment of what Al Gore, in 1991, proposed as the “Information Superhighway.” Under the Social Contract, cable operators would be subsidized so they could build-out their networks to meet the needs of homes, schools, hospitals, libraries, businesses and government offices with advanced optical fiber networks. Gore envisioned that by 2010 all public institutions and 100 million homes would have fast, two-way broadband communications.

Now, after a decade and a half of deregulation, what have we got? AT&T and Verizon combined have only five-plus million fiber-based subscribers and the cable operators account for only about 20 percent of the residential voice market, a much smaller amount of the business telephone service and no major presence in the wireless market. Thus, deregulation, after all is said and done, gave us slower Internet speeds, less choice over service provider and higher prices. Competition within the telecommunications industry is a myth.

Under the Social Contact, cable operators were required to upgrade their networks to a minimum data rate; technically, it was set at 750 MHz per second analog and “at least 200 MHz is expected to be dedicated to digital distribution.” The FCC required that “at least 60 percent of the capital expended to complete the required upgrades must be applied for the benefit of basic service tier and CPST subscribers.” In addition, all upgraded systems were required to offer at least 15 CPST or basic service channels and three-fifths CPST had to be offered over analog services.

Like most federal rules, the Social Contract is slippery. In 1997, Comcast applied to the FCC to “complete certain upgrades and improvements” under the Social Contract. It agreed to provide free modems and online service to 4,000 public and private elementary and high schools and up to 250 public libraries within a year after rolling out Internet-access service commercially to residential customers in the same franchise area. In return, Comcast was permitted to create “product tiers in those systems which had not been previously granted comparable tier flexibility.” Sadly, there is no apparent report as to whether Comcast met these system upgrade requirements.

In 1999, TCI (now part of Comcast) sought to swap cable systems for Time Warner’s systems in Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, and the FCC extended the benefits of the Social Contract originally awarded to Time Warner, but not the upgrade obligations. In the original agreement, Time Warner agreed to invest $4 billion for system upgrades, “this financial commitment will not apply to TCI. Instead, TCI will be required to make such capital expenditures as may be necessary for it to complete the required upgrades.” With a regulatory slight of hand, one company’s obligations turned into another’s opportunities.

In 2001, the New York PUC revealed how the Social Contract really worked, in this case for Time Warner subscribers. Time Warner sought to increase the original $1 per month per subscriber charge for basic CPST services. As it stated without subterfuge: “The charge was an annual increase of $1 per month for a total charge to CPST customers of $12 in 1996, $24 in 1997, $36 in 1998, $48 in 1999 and $60 in 2000.”

The PUC “tentatively concludes” that Time Warner should decrease its total upgrade surcharge attributed to the Social Contract. Did the hidden Social Contract on subscribers increase fivefold? Sadly, yet again, there appears to be no public report as to whether this increase or decrease went into effect. How much has Time Warner received from the Social Contract over the last decade and what system upgrades, especially to public institutions, has it provided?

***

Since the Social Contract went into effect, numerous state and local legal challenges have been raised about its imposition. For example, in 2000, Massachusetts’ Division of Cable Television conducted a hearing to determine whether Time Warner propose rate structures for the communities of Athol, Orange, Dalton, Pittsfield and Richmond. It determined that Time Warner did not meet the criteria established by the FCC under the provisions of the social contract, and denied its request. In 2009, Hawaii’s Dept. of Commerce, Cable Television Division determined that Time Warner had “opted out of certain rate regulation provisions under the 'Social Contract'."

Further clarification was revealed in a 2009 class action suit against Time Warner brought by Patricia Crumley in Minnesota. She charged Time Warner overcharged or double billed its customers in Minneapolis for network upgrades that it made to its cable systems. According to the suit, Time Warner had agreed to commit $4 billion for upgrades and “the Social Contract allowed Time Warner to charge its customers a surcharge of up to $180 each over a five-year period between 1996 and 2000 to cover the cost of the upgrade.” In addition, the suit contended that the company was also collecting for the same upgrades through the franchise agreement, thus double billing the customer. What happened? “The district court dismissed the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, concluding that the claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine.” So much for determining whether Time Warner engaged in double billing. The unasked, and unanswered, question is whether other cable companies throughout the country engaged in such double billing over the last 15 years.

Since the social con came into effect, no thorough analysis of monies raised by cable companies appears to have taken place or an accounting as to how the monies have been spent. The commitments made by Comcast in 1997 to provide free online service to schools and libraries is representative of the commitments made by Time Warner and other cable operators for the Social Contract. Have the operators fulfilled these commitments? It's time we found out, especially as Comcast attempts to acquire NBC-Universal.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148785/





Making Ads That Whisper to the Brain
Natasha Singer

WHAT happens in our brains when we watch a compelling TV commercial?

For one thing, certain brain waves that correlate with heightened attention become more active, according to researchers who have used EEGs, or electroencephalographs, to study the brain’s electrical frequencies. Brain waves that signal less-focused attention, meanwhile, tend to subside.

In other words, this is your brain on ads.

Or so say neuromarketers, a nascent group of researchers who use techniques from neuroscience to analyze people’s responses to products and promotions.

Neuromarketing’s raison d’être derives from the fact that the brain expends only 2 percent of its energy on conscious activity, with the rest devoted largely to unconscious processing. Thus, neuromarketers believe, traditional market research methods — like consumer surveys and focus groups — are inherently inaccurate because the participants can never articulate the unconscious impressions that whet their appetites for certain products.

If pitches are to succeed, they need to reach the subconscious level of the brain, the place where consumers develop initial interest in products, inclinations to buy them and brand loyalty, says A. K. Pradeep, the founder and chief executive of NeuroFocus, a neuromarketing firm based in Berkeley, Calif.

Volunteers in NeuroFocus marketing tests wear a fabric cap that houses EEG sensors and an eye-tracking device while they look at a commercial, use a Web site or view a movie trailer. The dual devices enable researchers to connect the volunteers’ brain patterns with the exact video images or banner ads or logos they’re viewing.

“By measuring brain waves, we are able to measure attention, emotion and memory,” says Dr. Pradeep, who holds a Ph.D. in engineering. “We basically compute the deep subconscious response to stimuli.”

Add all those electrical patterns together, he says, and “you find it represents the whispers of the brain.”

And the brain-whispering business seems to be booming.

A handful of neuromarketing firms, like EmSense, Sands Research, MindLab International and NeuroSense, now specialize in the latest mind-mining techniques — EEGs, M.R.I.’s, eye-tracking — or in older biometric methods that track skin, muscle or facial responses to products or ads.

Companies like Google, CBS, Disney, Frito-Lay and A & E Television, as well as some political campaigns, have used neuromarketing to test consumer impressions. And, in 2008, Nielsen invested in NeuroFocus, the largest of these firms, adding credibility to the field.

Trying to tap into the consumer subconscious in the hope of moving more merch isn’t new. More than 50 years ago, Vance Packard, a journalist and social critic, wrote a seminal book called “The Hidden Persuaders,” which described how advertisers played on people’s unconscious desires in trying to influence them.

Neuromarketing is simply the latest incarnation, says Joseph Turow, a professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. “There has always been a holy grail in advertising to try to reach people in a hypodermic way,” he says.

Major corporations and research firms, he says, are jumping on the neuromarketing bandwagon because they are desperate for any novel technique to help them break through all the marketing clutter. “It’s as much about the nature of the industry and the anxiety roiling through the system as it is about anything else,” he says.

But should we worry that a technique that probes subconscious brain patterns might be used to unduly influence consumers, turning them into shopping robots without their knowledge and consent? Indeed, neuromarketing is setting off alarm bells among some consumer advocates, who call it “brandwashing” — an amalgam of branding and brainwashing.

“It’s having an effect on individuals that individuals are not informed about,” and should be regulated, says Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, which works to safeguard digital privacy.

Mr. Chester says the government traditionally hasn’t restricted advertising for adults because adults have defense mechanisms that can distinguish between truth and untruth. “But if the advertising is now purposely designed to bypass those rational defenses, then the traditional legal defenses protecting advertising speech in the marketplace have to be questioned.”

Proponents of the technique, however, say neuromarketing is simply a more accurate barometer of consumer response than traditional focus groups.

Dr. Pradeep of NeuroFocus, for one, says his company will never use subliminal techniques — like embedding stimuli that last 30 milliseconds or less — that people can’t consciously register. And while other neuromarketing firms have been involved in political campaigns, testing candidate speeches and ad scripts, NeuroFocus has not.

“If I persuaded you to choose Toothpaste A or Toothpaste B, you haven’t really lost much, but if I persuaded you to choose President A or President B, the consequences could be much more profound,” Dr. Pradeep says. “The fact that we can use this technology to do this doesn’t mean we should.”

Moreover, at this point, neuromarketing probably isn’t sophisticated enough to realize some of its critics’ worst fears.

EEGs, for example, can be used to determine whether a person is engaged, but not to decipher the nuances of that engagement, says Dr. Robert T. Knight, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Berkeley as well as the chief science adviser at NeuroFocus. That means, he says, that neuromarketing may distinguish whether a person’s emotional response is positive or negative, but not whether the positive response is awe or amusement.

“This is not a mind reader,” Dr. Knight says. “We can only measure whether you are paying attention.”

SKEPTICS also note that the technique has yet to prove that brain-pattern responses to marketing correlate with purchasing behavior.

The enthusiasm for neuromarketing is based on a mistaken belief that triggering certain brain activity can be a more real and powerful influence than people’s behavioral responses, says Paul Root Wolpe, a bioethicist who is director of the Emory Center for Ethics. He calls neuromarketing an “iffy technology,” a kind of pop neurology that at best may provide cues and clues on how companies can better position products.

“The idea is that somehow neuromarketing is going to be so much more powerful that, like zombies, we are all going to go out and buy soap,” Professor Wolpe says. “But that is just not realistic in terms of the way the brain works.”

Efforts are now under way to try to validate these techniques. In September, the Advertising Research Foundation, an industry group, announced a “NeuroStandards Initiatives” project. It is to review research from participating firms and to establish some industrywide standards for neuromarketing.

NeuroFocus isn’t participating because it already has its own standards, Dr. Pradeep says. But the NeuroStandards project has still attracted some serious interest: sponsors include General Motors, Clorox, American Express, Campbell Soup and MTV Networks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/bu.../14stream.html





Wireless Music Sync With Winamp Media Player For Android
Simon Slangen

Ever since 1997, Winamp has been one of the more popular and widely used media players for the Windows operating systems. It’s always been an icon of lightweight excellence.

Recently, Nullsoft, the team behind Winamp, seems to have been exploring other platforms. Winamp for Android was long rumored and hoped for, and now it seems to have become a reality.

We took the Winamp Android Beta for a spin, and listed the most prominent features for you below.

Late October, Nullsoft released the first Winamp Beta for the Android mobile platform. Although Winamp is already showing the other application who’s boss, especially feature-wise, this means there’s still room for improvement. Currently, the media player can only be installed on Android 2.1 and above.

Winamp for Android offers a slick, dark interface that’s easy and intuitive to use. Unlike most media players, Winamp makes good use of the available screen real-estate, and doesn’t make it feel too crowded. You can fluently jump to and fro the Now Playing screen by means of a pull-up bar (shown above).

You’ll also notice that in every Winamp Android screen, regardless of where you are, the player buttons will be present. In most cases, this means you won’t even have to visit the Now Playing screen. In conclusion, the Android Winamp interface makes you keep a relaxed and complete of your media.

Home & Lock Screen Widgets

Android’s Winamp also comes with two viable media player widgets, so you can keep using your phone as usual without losing sight of your media.

The home screen widget, shown below, sports an album thumbnail, some general information, and the media player controls – all in all, very standard. You’re also able to switch between repeat and shuffle options. On the flip side, a number of people have noted this particular widget as a battery drain, rapidly losing mobile life-juice, even if not actively using the widget.

Winamp has succeeded in mimicking the official Android media player application, and also offers a lock screen widget. This allows you to control your media immediately when taking your phone out of standby, without having to open the home screen or Winamp application. The lock screen widget effectively runs on top of the regular lockscreen, so does not integrate as well as the official media player, although it is a really good start.
(Wireless) Desktop Sync

Winamp’s flagship feature on the Android must be the Desktop Sync. This allows you to keep your music on your Android current and synchronized with your desktop Winamp library, even using wireless. Of course, you can also connect over USB, which improves your battery life and transfer speeds.

To use Desktop Sync, you need to have the Winamp Beta installed on your Android phone and the Winamp 5.59 Beta installed on your Windows desktop. This does not currently work on Linux and Mac.

On your Android, you can enable wireless sync in the Winamp Settings -> Media Syncing. This does not need to be enabled to transfer files over USB.

If all goes right, you’ll be able to see your device in the Winamp left sidebar on your desktop. Hre you can view, and update your mobile media library (shown above). Options include streaming music from your phone to your desktop, synchronizing and automatically filling up your available phone memory.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wireles...layer-android/





Wal-Mart Says ‘Try This On’: Free Shipping
Stephanie Clifford and Claire Cain Miller

For years, Wal-Mart has used its clout as the nation’s largest retailer to squeeze competitors with rock-bottom prices in its stores. Now it is trying to throw a holiday knockout punch online.

Starting Thursday, Wal-Mart Stores plans to offer free shipping on its Web site, with no minimum purchase, on almost 60,000 gift items, including many toys and electronics. The offer will run through Dec. 20, when Wal-Mart said it might consider other free-shipping deals.

“Everyone’s trying to figure out how we can serve a customer that’s trying to save every penny they can,” said Steve Nave, senior vice president and general manager of Walmart.com. “It’s the most competitive offer out there, and we’re pretty excited about it.”

Even before Wal-Mart’s surprise move, shipping prices were this holiday season’s predicament for online retailers. In a bid for cost-conscious consumers, Target and J. C. Penney introduced their most aggressive free-shipping programs ever, and Sears, Toys “R” Us, Williams-Sonoma and others were trying to match the success of Amazon’s shipping program, offering unlimited two-day shipping for an annual fee.

But given Wal-Mart’s scale and influence in the marketplace, its free pass for shipping sets a new high — or low — in e-commerce. And it may create an expectation among consumers — free shipping, no minimum, always — that would make it harder for smaller e-commerce sites to survive.

Wal-Mart says it will not raise prices to offset shipping and will not press shippers, like UPS and FedEx, to absorb the costs. But Wal-Mart and other big retailers already have low-price contracts with shippers, and the stores maintain distribution centers nationwide that reduce shipping distances and costs.

For smaller retailers and Web sites, which pay regular mail rates and may ship from only one location, free shipping is not nearly as affordable and often must be added into prices.

“You’re trying to compete with the Amazons and the Zappos, who have so many different warehouses that they can significantly reduce transport costs,” said Gary Schwake, director of business development at the Distribution Management Group, a consulting firm that advises retailers like Eddie Bauer.

Retailers say that shoppers have already started to revolt against shipping fees. While consumers are sensitive to what an item costs online, shipping costs can have even more influence, according to market research.

When e-commerce took off a decade ago, free shipping was a rare perk. Now, 55 percent of consumers are at least somewhat likely to abandon their purchase if they do not get free shipping, according to comScore, the online-research firm, and about 41 percent of transactions online now include free shipping (usually with a minimum purchase).

Wal-Mart is throwing itself into the holiday season shipping fray as it tries to revive sales. Even as other retailers’ sales have recovered, sales at Wal-Mart’s stores in the United States open more than a year have fallen for five consecutive quarters. Recently, it has been adding to the merchandise it carries, offering products for under $1 and undercutting Target on toy prices.

The Wal-Mart shipping offer has no minimum. Mr. Nave said an important factor was that an item was likely to be given as a gift. “We looked at the areas we felt were going to be popular in gift-giving this holiday, and went from there,” he said.

Even after the holidays, “I would expect to see us continue to have offerings similar to this in the future in some way, shape or form,” he said.

The Wal-Mart announcement was not public until Thursday, but retailers had already been escalating their shipping programs since last year, when mobile comparison-shopping apps helped make free shipping popular.

Amazon.com has one successful model. Year-round, it offers free shipping on orders over $25. And its Amazon Prime program, in which members pay $79 a year for unlimited two-day shipping on almost all purchases, could account for as much as a third of sales, said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.

“It is making other retailers scramble,” he said.

To fight off Amazon Prime, a month ago GSI Commerce started ShopRunner, a service that bands together e-commerce sites including eBags and the Web site of Toys “R” Us. Shoppers pay $79 a year for unlimited two-day shipping from any of the members. This fall, Williams-Sonoma started a service like that for $30 a year, and Sears and Kmart, which introduced a similar program three years ago, are pushing it heavily this season.

Beginning in October, J.C. Penney started offering free shipping year-round, with a minimum purchase of $69 for most of the year. Target is offering free shipping on purchases of $50 and up, on 800,000 items. And in August L.L. Bean began offering free shipping with no minimum, through Dec. 20.

Bigger companies have a big advantage in the battle over free shipping: volume.

According to the Distribution Management Group, air shipping prices for big retailers are about 70 percent less than for a small company. Shipping at Amazon costs about 4 percent of sales, and Amazon loses money on it because it offers marketing benefits, said Aaron Kessler, an e-commerce analyst at the research firm ThinkEquity. But shipping at small sites usually costs about 35 percent of sales, said Mr. Schwake, the retail adviser.

Despite the costs, smaller retailers say they have little choice but to offer free shipping, in some form, these days.

“Everyone does it,” said Michael Mente, the co-founder of Revolve Clothing, a Los Angeles-based women’s clothing site. Asked if he received discounts from the shippers, he said, “Unfortunately not.” At the start-up site ModCloth, which sells women’s clothes, the co-founder Susan Gregg Koger said she couldn’t afford free shipping year round, but she decided to do it for the holiday season. It is a risk, she said.

“That’s really hard to offer and then roll back,” she said.

While Wal-Mart may continue with some free shipping offers after the holidays, even other big retailers like L.L. Bean say they just cannot afford it after Christmas is over.

“We’d love to be able to offer free shipping, but free shipping isn’t free,” said Laurie Brooks, an L.L. Bean spokeswoman. “It does cost a company money."

There are potential downsides, even for Wal-Mart. Physical stores with Web sites run a risk in promoting free shipping, Mr. Rohan said. “They’d much rather you buy that same item in the store for $50 and pick up a hundred dollars of other stuff you wouldn’t even think about,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/bu...1shipping.html





One Third of Top-Grossing iPhone Apps Are Free
Ryan Kim

When Apple began allowing free apps to include in-app purchases a little over a year ago, it opened the door for freemium models to flourish. And they are doing just that, with about a third of the top-grossing iPhone apps using a freemium model.

A look at the top-grossing iPhone apps today finds 34 of the top 100 apps are free, but make their money through in-app purchases of mostly virtual currencies as well as other premium features. Remco van den Elzen, CEO of analytics firm Distimo, said he believes in-app purchases now represent about 30 percent of all iPhone App Store revenue. “We’re seeing more developers implement more in app-purchases especially with games,” he said. “Freemium Apps are also picking up significantly. A lot of developers realize it’s a successful model.”

App Annie, another analytics firm, confirmed the growth of freemium apps. In January, there were just two freemium iPhone apps in the App Store among the top 50, said App Annie. By the end of October, that number had grown to 10, and now there are about 20 apps among the top 50 grossing apps with in-app purchases.

The numbers behind freemium apps also got a boost from Apple, which changed the way it calculated revenues from freemium apps on Nov. 1, allowing them to be more accurate and consistent, said Bertrand Schmitt, CEO of App Annie. Schmitt said freemium apps began to take off in May and June as more developers began employing in-app purchases and consumers became more aware of it. The model works because it gives people an easy way to try an app and then allows developers to up-sell them on added features or in-game currencies, which help users buy things or move the game along.

Freemium apps are still a small percentage of apps overall. Distimo said the percentage of free apps with in-app purchases has increased from 1.10 percent in the second quarter to 1.34 percent in the third quarter. While the percentage of freemium apps is low, it’s striking to see how much money they’re actually raking in for the top apps.

The ten top-grossing iPhone apps include Restaurant Story (#3), Tap Zoo (#4), NBA Game Time 2010-2011 (#7), Haypi Kingdom (#9) and Kingdoms at War (#8). Restaurant Story, Tap Zoo and Empire Story all launched within the last couple of months, but older games, such as Haypi Kingdom (Jan. 2010) and Kingdoms at War (Sept. 2009), also continue to rake in significant revenue. The free titles are edging out established moneymakers like Plants vs. Zombies, Madden NFL and Doodle Jump.

But it’s not just gaming apps. The New York Road Runners Marathon App, which allowed real-time tracking of the marathon, went for $3.99, and shot to No. 1 Sunday during the race. The NBA Game Time app also hit No. 1 on Nov. 1, with its ability to receive videos, highlights, radio feeds advertising free. Distimo said the largest portion of in-app purchases are in games (3.8 percent) and social networking apps (4.3 percent).

Meanwhile, the iPad, with its generally higher price points for paid apps, isn’t as lucrative for freemium apps compared to paid apps. None of the top 100 apps on the top-grossing list are free though there are free iPad apps with in-app purchases.

The growth of the freemium model on the iPhone shouldn’t be a surprise. Freemium has been popular in Asia for years with pioneers like Nexon leading the way, and has also been the model of choice for Facebook games, helping Zynga achieve a $5.5 billion valuation. IPhone games publisher Ngmoco switched early to a freemium model and hit No. 1 on the top-grossing chart with Eliminate Pro, a shooter game. Now success is becoming much more common for app developers as the pace of freemium app adoption picks up.
Free apps won’t work for every category, and they still need to provide people with plenty of use and not make them feel like they’re being cheated out of a good experience if they don’t spend money. The best of them increasingly seem to have the formula down when it comes to drawing in hordes of customers and monetizing a small percentage of them to great effect. Schmitt said top freemium developers are finding they can make more money with in-app purchases than advertising. As we’re learning more and more: Free can definitely pay the bills and more.
http://gigaom.com/2010/11/10/one-thi...apps-are-free/





Android Holes Allow Secret Installation of Apps

Security researchers have demonstrated two vulnerabilities that allow attackers to install apps on Android and its vendor-specific implementations without a user's permission. During normal installation, users are at least asked to confirm whether an application is to have certain access rights. Bypassing this confirmation request reportedly allows spyware or even diallers to be installed on a smartphone.

What's special about the two vulnerabilities is that they can be exploited without an attack on Android's underlying Linux kernel and function in the userspace alone. When analysing HTC devices, the security specialist known as Nils found that the integrated web browser has the right to install further packages (INSTALL_PACKAGES). Nils says that HTC integrated this functionality so that the browser can automatically update its Flash Lite plug-in. However, attackers can exploit this if they have found another browser hole.

Such browser holes in Android 2.1 were already disclosed by security firm MWR InfoSecurity (Nils happens to be its head of research) in mid-August. A browser exploit for Motorola's Droid was also released recently. To demonstrate the attack, Nils used a HTC Legend running Android 2.1. The browser hole has been closed in Android 2.2, but only about a third of users are already running this version on their devices.

This harmless looking app links to further apps resulting in charges to the user. Vergrößern Android specialist Jon Oberheide demonstrated another hole which involved misusing the Account Manager to generate an authentication token for the Android Market and obtaining permission to install further apps from there. However, this initially requires a specially crafted app to be installed on the smartphone. Nothing could be easier: Oberheide released the allegedly harmless "Angry Birds Bonus Levels" app intothe Android Market and, upon installation, this app downloaded and installed three further apps ("Fake Toll Fraud", "Fake Contact Stealer" and "Fake Location Tracker") without requesting the user's permission.

The privileges of "Fake Tool Fraud" included the right to send premium SMS messages. Google has since removed all of Oberheide's apps from the Market. Back in June, Oberheide had already used an app to demonstrate an Android vulnerability. At the time, Google used the remote deletion feature, available on Android devices, for the first time.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...s-1134940.html





Researchers Take Down Koobface Servers

Criminals behind the botnet made more than $2 million in one year
Robert McMillan

Security researchers, working with law enforcement and Internet service providers, have disrupted the brains of the Koobface botnet.

Late Friday afternoon, Pacific Time, the computer identified as the command-and-control server used to send instructions to infected Koobface machines was offline. According to Nart Villeneuve the chief research officer with SecDev Group, the server was one of three Koobface systems taken offline Friday by Coreix, a U.K. Internet service provider. "Those are all on the same network, and they're all inaccessible right now," Villeneuve said Friday evening.

Late Friday afternoon, Pacific Time, the computer identified as the command-and-control server used to send instructions to infected Koobface machines was offline. According to Nart Villeneuve the chief research officer with SecDev Group, the server was one of three Koobface systems taken offline Friday by Coreix, a U.K. Internet service provider. "Those are all on the same network, and they're all inaccessible right now," Villeneuve said Friday evening.

Coreix took down the servers after researchers contacted U.K. law enforcement, Villeneuve said. The company could not be reached immediately for comment.

The takedown will disrupt Koobface for a time, but for any real effect, much more will have to happen. Machines that are infected by Koobface connect to intermediary servers -- typically Web servers that have had their FTP credentials compromised -- that then redirect them to the now-downed command and control servers.

Friday's takedown is part of a larger operation that first started two weeks ago. Villeneuve and his team have notified the ISPs about the compromised FTP accounts, and they've also tipped off Facebook and Google to hundreds of thousands of Koobface-operated accounts.

The Facebook accounts are used to lure victims to Google Blogspot pages, which in turn redirect them to Web servers that contain the malicious Koobface code. Victims are usually promised some interesting video on a page designed to look like YouTube. But first they must download special video software. That software is actually Koobface.

Koobface includes several components, including worm software that automatically tries to infect Facebook friends of the victims, and botnet code that gives the hackers remote control of the infected computer.

Koobface has turned out to be a pretty lucrative business since it first popped up on Facebook in July 2008. In a report published Friday, Villeneuve says that the botnet made more than US$2 million between June 2009 and June 2010.

Researchers found data stored on another central server, called "the mothership" used by the Koobface gang to keep track of accounts. This server sent daily text messages to four Russian mobile numbers each day, reporting the botnet's daily earnings totals. Revenue ranged from a loss of $1,014.11 on Jan. 15 of this year to a profit of $19,928.53 on March 23.

Payments were made to Koobface's operators through the Paymer payment service, similar to eBay's PayPal.

The gang's creators would use their hacked computers to register more Gmail, Blogspot and Facebook accounts and steal FTP (File Transfer Protocol) passwords. They also messed up their victims' search results to trick them into clicking on online ads, generating referral money from advertising companies. More cash came from fake antivirus software that Koobface can sneak onto victims' PCs.

Almost exactly half of Koobface's income -- just over $1 million [m] -- came from the fake antivirus software. The other half came from online advertising fees.

Villeneuve doesn't identify the Koobface gang in the report, but he thinks that at least one of the members lives in St. Petersburg.

Interestingly, Koobface's operators could have caused more damage. They could have broken into online bank accounts, or stolen passwords or credit card numbers, but they didn't.

"The Koobface gang had a certain charm and ethical restraint," the report sates. "They communicated with security researchers about their intents and their desire not to do major harm. They limited their crimes to petty fraud, albeit massive in scale and scope. But the scary part is that they could have easily done otherwise."

They may not be so friendly with researchers from now on, however.

Villeneuve has handed over information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and U.K. authorities. And the researchers have also notified Facebook, Google and various ISPs about the fraudulent and compromised accounts. They have identified 20,000 fake Facebook accounts; 500,000 fake Gmail and Blogspot accounts, and thousands of compromised FTP accounts used by the gang.

They hope that these activities will disrupt the botnet's operations, but Villeneuve has no illusions about Koobface being stopped. "I think that they'll probably start up pretty soon, and they'll probably try to recover as many of their bots as soon as they can," he said.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/201...-koobface.html





FBI Probes 4chan's 'Anonymous' DDoS Attacks
Greg Sandoval

The FBI has launched an investigation into an online protest that allegedly took down numerous Web sites belonging to antipiracy and entertainment groups, as well as the U.S. Copyright Office, a source with knowledge of the probe told CNET today.

Over the past two months, a group calling itself "Anonymous," with links to the 4chan Web forum and image board, has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) against Web sites operated by the Motion Picture Association of America, The Recording Industry Association (RIAA), Hustler magazine, rocker Gene Simmons, The British Phonographic Industry, and other similar groups in France, Australia, Spain and elsewhere.

A DDoS attack describes hitting a Web site with enough traffic to overwhelm the site's servers.

While one of the 4chan group's most recent attacks came last week against the Copyright Office, it is believed that the FBI began asking questions prior to that, said the source. Since the Copyright Office attack, however, FBI agents have begun working closely with many of the organizations attacked, the source said.

While there are reports that Anonymous plans to wind down the attacks, they are the latest sign that the animosity between copyright owners and file sharers is turning white hot as they battle for control of Web distribution. According to several messages from those claiming to speak for Anonymous, the group said it is motivated by protecting the free flow of information and that copyright is a form of censorship. Copyright owners argue that these groups are pseudo freedom fighters who are trying to justify theft. They say the only people losing anything in this struggle are those who make movies, software, music, and other intellectual property pilfered with the help of the Internet.

Just how much damage the attacks caused is unclear. Many of the targets hit provide little more than information about the organizations. However, the Copyright Office maintains records of copyright ownership, issues copyrights, and assists the U.S. Congress in developing copyright policy. As part of the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office is under the purview of the U.S. government's executive branch.

Matthew Raymond, a spokesman for the U.S. Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, said in an e-mail that the DDoS attack "significantly degraded the ability of users to access that server." FBI representatives did not respond to interview requests.

Participating in a DDoS attack can mean prison and fines.

Last week, Mitchell L. Frost, 23, was sentenced to 30 months in prison after launching DDoS attacks in 2006 and 2007 against the Web sites of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and political commentators Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. In May, Frost pleaded guilty to causing damage to a protected computer system and possessing unauthorized access devices.

The DDoS attacks have occurred against a backdrop of increasing litigation by independent film and porn studios against individual file sharers, and as the music industry pursues two high profile file-sharing cases.

Earlier this year, a group of indie film companies, including Voltage Pictures, makers of the Oscar-winning motion picture, "The Hurt Locker," began filing copyright complaints in federal court against thousands of accused illegal file sharers. More recently, adult film studios, such as Hustler and Third World Media, followed suit and filed similar lawsuits.

Also this year, the RIAA, the trade group for the four largest record labels, won court decisions that resulted in the dismantling of LimeWire, one of the country's most popular file-sharing networks. Last week, the RIAA also saw a jury decide that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, an accused file-sharing mother from Minnesota, should pay $1.5 million in damages to the RIAA.

Meanwhile, as some on the file-sharing side have lashed out against the entertainment sector's attempts to enforce copyright, which they claim limits free speech, some copyright owners say the Anonymous group and supporters are hypocrites. They note that the DDoS attacks do little more than silence dissenting opinion.

When Gene Simmons, bass player for the iconic rock band Kiss, spoke out recently against illegal file sharing, his site, Genesimmons.com suffered outages as a result of a DDoS attack by Anonymous.

People supportive of the entertainment industry took the opportunity to ask where was the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and other free-speech proponents when their sites were being gagged by Anonymous' traffic. EFF advocates for Internet users and tech companies and is typically at odds with entertainment companies over copyright issues.

"The silence here is deafening," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "Where's the outrage? Apparently, not all First Amendment free speech rights are created equal. At best, it's convenient indifference. At worst, it's quiet cheerleading."

A spokesman for the MPAA said: "It's troubling that these groups seem more concerned about the rights of those who steal and copy films, music, books, and other creative resources than the rights of American workers who are producing these products."

Rebecca Jeschke, an EFF spokeswoman fired right back: "We generally don't comment on DDoS attacks, even when they happen to us. DDoS attacks get in the way of people seeing content they want to see on the Internet, and of course that's not something we support. But we don't comment on them in part because it gives these folks what they want--attention for their stunts. As for the entertainment industry calling on us to criticize it? This is just silly PR gamesmanship, used in place of talking about the real issues of copyright at play here."

Jeschke's statement is reflective of the controversy the DDoS attacks have stirred even among some of file sharing's staunchest supporters.

Mike Masnick, founder of the blog Techdirt, wrote in September that the attacks were "dumb" and "don't make any real point." The tech news site, Ars Technica, has also been critical of the DDoS campaign.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20022264-261.html





Firesheep Countermeasure Tool BlackSheep

Firesheep is the Firefox extension that makes it easier to steal logins and take over social media and email accounts after users log in from a WiFi hotspot or even their own unprotected network.

Developers say they were simply hoping to shed light on the problem of not using SSL encryption for user sessions. But the temptation for people to use it for nefarious purposes is too great.

Zscaler researchers have created, and are now offering to every consumer, a free Firefox plugin called BlackSheep, which serves as a counter-measure. BlackSheep combats Firesheep by monitoring traffic and then alerting users if Firesheep is being used on the network.

BlackSheep does this by dropping ‘fake’ session ID information on the wire and then monitors traffic to see if it has been hijacked.

While Firesheep is largely passive, once it identifies session information for a targeted domain, it then makes a subsequent request to that same domain, using the hijacked session information in order to obtain the name of the hijacked user along with an image of the person, if available.

It is this request that BlackSheep identifies in order to detect the presence of Firesheep on the network. When identified, the user will be receive the following warning message:

It should be noted that Firesheep and BlackSheep cannot be installed on the same Firefox instance as they share much of the same code base. If you want to run both Firesheep and BlackSheep on the same machine, they should be installed in separate Firefox profiles.

By default, BlackSheep generates fake traffic every 5 minutes. You can change this value in the option settings.
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=10118





Dear Starbucks: The Skinny on How You Can be a Security Hero
Chester Wisniewski

Starbucks secure WiFiThe recent hubbub around Firesheep has provided me with a golden opportunity to Venti my views on public WiFi hotspots and present my Grande Plan.

All of the attention (as intended) resulting from the release of Firesheep has been focused on the service providers and how they should be using SSL/TLS to protect users' sessions. That's great, even if I would have preferred a more delicate approach to proving the point.

But I think it's the right answer to the wrong question.

The right question is this: why is "public Wifi" always synonymous with "unencrypted WiFi?" Encryption has been a basic component of WiFi technology since the first versions of 802.11 were approved. I wouldn't suggest we go back to using WEP like we did in the early days, but even WEP is an improvement over nothing.

While Facebook and other companies should be providing us secure methods of connecting to their services, those companies kind enough to provide us with free internet access at cafes, airports and other public places are also part of the problem.

I propose standard adoption of WPA2 and a default password of "free". Whenever you wish to connect to complimentary WiFi, you select "Courtyard Marriott" or "Starbucks" like you always have, but you are then prompted for a password.

Just type "free". It's not hard. In fact, operating system vendors could even program your PC to automatically try the password "free" before prompting you for a password on the assumption that you might be selecting a free service.

What is the value of a password if it is a "well-known secret?" WPA2 negotiates unique encryption keys with every computer that connects to it. This means you and I cannot spy on one another's traffic even when sharing access on the same access point. This is not true for WEP, but nearly all 802.11g access points (the most common) support WPA2 and can provide safe, convenient, free internet access.

This is a golden opportunity for a high-profile provider of free WiFi to step up and show us how easy it is. I chose to call on Starbucks because they have a demonstrated policy of trying to do the right thing. In fact, their website says

"..we dedicated ourselves to earning the trust and respect of our customers, partners and neighbors. How? By being responsible and doing things that are good for the planet and each other."

Starbucks partners with AT&T in the United States and Bell in Canada to provide their service. I am confident they both possess the expertise and staff to quickly convert Starbucks stores from providing fast, reliable internet access to providing fast, reliable and SECURE internet access.

Do you provide guest WiFi? Join my movement to provide a safer internet for everyone by making sure you provide secure wireless access. If you care enough to provide networking to your friends, neighbors, or customers, help them enjoy it securely.
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010...security-hero/





Fedora Bars SQLNinja Hack Tool

'Path of madness'
Dan Goodin

Fedora Project leaders have banned a popular penetration-testing tool from their repository out of concern it could saddle the organization with legal burdens.

The move came on Monday in a unanimous vote by the Fedora Project's board of directors rejecting a request that SQLNinja be added to the archive of open-source applications. It came even as a long list of other hacker tools are included in the bundle and was harshly criticized by some security watchers.

“It seems incredibly short sighted to reject software based on perceived legal usage,” said Jacob Appelbaum, a full-time programmer for the Tor Project. “They have decided to become judges of likely usage based on their own experience. That is a path of madness.”

SQLNinja is an open-source toolkit that exploits SQL injection vulnerabilities in poorly configured web applications that use Microsoft SQL Server as the back-end database. Its creator, Alberto Revelli, concedes it “has an extremely aggressive nature,” in part because its focus is on taking over remote machines by “getting an interactive shell on the remote DB server and using it as a foothold in the target network.”

But his website insists it should be used by professional penetration testers and only when they have authorization to do so.

“The guys at Fedora can choose to include/reject whatever they like,” he told The Reg. “Of course, deciding to exclude applications like SQLNinja might not make their distribution particularly popular with penetration testers and security professionals.”

Fedora's move isn't the first time legal concerns have prompted an organization to place restrictions on security wares. Last year, PayPal suspended the account of hacker Moxie Marlinspike after an unknown person used his research into website authentication to publish a counterfeit certificate for the online payment processor.

In 2007, Germany enacted draconian anti-hacker measures that criminalize the creation or possession of dual-use security tools. In 2008, the UK government considered doing much the same.

The Fedora board's meeting minutes, don't state the precise objections that led to the decision, but they show one consideration involved concerns that SQLNinja “is advertised as 'get root on remote systems' – it doesn't advertise itself as a security tool.” Board members also discussed whether inclusion of such software would significantly increase their legal liability.

“After debating the pros and cons of whether or not to include it in Fedora, we put it up for a vote,” Fedora Project Leader Jared Smith wrote in an email. “The Fedora Board voted to exclude it from the Fedora repositories, based on the criteria listed above.”

The decision came during the same meeting that the board unanimously decided to add a new statement to Fedora's legal guidelines concerning the inclusion of hacking tools. It reads:

Where, objectively speaking, the package has essentially no useful foreseeable purposes other than those that are highly likely to be illegal or unlawful in one or more major jurisdictions in which Fedora is distributed or used, such that distributors of Fedora will face heightened legal risk if Fedora were to include the package, then the Fedora Project Board has discretion to deny inclusion of the package for that reason alone.

Smith said the language is intended to clarify its stance on a class of software that can be used both to secure and penetrate protected networks.

“It's very much a gray area, and as a Board we wanted to ensure that we were careful and deliberate about the kinds of tools we choose to put in Fedora,” he explained.

For the record, Fedora already includes a host of other hacking tools, including Jack John the Ripper, Ettercap, Dsniff, Yersinia, Nessus and Nikto, to name a small few.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...cker_tool_ban/





US Wants Upper Hand in Battling High-Tech Bad Guys

4G cell phone, cloud computing, VoIP forensics target of US Department of Justice call for action
Michael Cooney

The US Department of Justice this week said it was looking to boost the research and development of technology that could bring new forensic tools for digital evidence gathering.

The DoJ's research and development arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) said it was particularly interested in tools targeting forensic tools for mobile cellular devices; cloud computing environments; VoIP communication and vehicle computer systems.

FBI details most difficult Internet scams

An article by my colleague Tim Greene earlier this year stated: Non-traditional communications devices such as smartphones and game consoles pose a particular problem to law enforcement agencies trying to milk them for forensic data that reveals criminal activity. "Forensic tools for cell phones are in their infancy," says Stephen Riley, a forensic examiner with the FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Team. "There's lots of different carriers, different phones, different cables - just try to keep up."

Smartphones can communicate via SMS, MMS, mobile e-mail, mobile internet access, VoIP and traditional cellular voice networks, Riley says, making each machine a potential treasure trove of information but also a nightmare maze of possible proprietary technologies to unlock it.

That's where the need for these sorts of research projects come from. In the DoJ's case, from its request document, the agency is looking for the following:

Forensic Tools for Mobile Cellular Devices: Digital forensic tools used to process evidence from cell phones acquire data from specific locations in the data storage space in the phone's subscriber identity module (SIM) card. Essentially, the tools are designed to "search" where data with forensic value is expected to be found. This is problematic from a forensic perspective, because data with forensic value can in fact be hidden in other file locations. This problem will grow more acute with the introduction of 4G cell phones. These phones will provide increased data storage capability, while maintaining or reducing the size of the phone, by maximizing the use of the available data storage space. As a result, some of the data storage areas that were not forensically relevant, and which current forensic tools ignore, may become forensically relevant. NIJ seeks proposals for research and technology development leading to the introduction into practice of forensic tools that can search all the file storage spaces of both 4G and earlier generation cell phones for data with forensic value.

Data Forensics in the Cloud Computing Environment: Internet-based or Cloud computing is a means of accessing computing resources with minimal infrastructure investment. The accessing of applications and storing of data through the Internet, rather than on the hard drive of a local computer or server, which is what characterizes Cloud computing, is challenging from a forensic perspective. One challenge is that if an application is accessed through the Internet, temporary files with forensic value that would traditionally have been stored on a computer hard drive will be stored within a virtual environment and lost when the user closes the application. With data residing on external servers, the ability to demonstrate that the data obtained is uncompromised also becomes more problematic. NIJ seeks proposals for research and technology development leading to the introduction into practice of forensic tools that can overcome the challenges of the Cloud computing environment. This includes proposals for the demonstration and evaluation of existing forensic tools that can overcome these challenges.

Forensic Tools for VoIP communications: There is a need for forensic tools to extract data with forensic value from computers used for Internet-based telephony, such as call-log data. NIJ seeks proposal for research and technology development leading to the introduction into practice of such tools. This includes proposals for the demonstration and evaluation of existing forensic tools that can meet this need.

Forensic Tools for Vehicle Computer Systems: Computers have become an integral component of motor vehicles, including event data recorders (EDRs), or "black boxes," which can be used for accident investigation. NIJ seeks proposals for research and technology development leading to the introduction into practice of forensic tools that can extract data with probative value for criminal justice purposes from the computer systems of vehicles with and without an EDR. This includes proposals for the demonstration and evaluation of existing forensic tools that currently address this need.

The NIJ said funding for research or development projects rarely exceeds $500,000 annually, though total funding for projects requiring multiple years to complete has exceeded $1 million in some cases.
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...gh-tech-bad-gu





UK Needs Cyber Attack Capability: Minister
Peter Apps

Britain should have an offensive ability to launch computer attacks to deter aggressors as part of a growing emphasis on cyber warfare, a British minister said -- and potential enemies should know its capabilities were already "considerable."

Despite broad cuts to government spending, including on defense, cyber security will receive greater funding. Britain announced a 650 million pound ($1.05 billion) program last month, labeling it a key priority.

As computer systems become more vital in the control of essential services, from power grids to banking, computerized attacks are seen as becoming as important a part of nations' arsenals as conventional or nuclear weaponry.

"We face a variety of threats in the cyber domain," armed forces minister Nick Harvey told Reuters on Tuesday after giving a speech on cyber policy at London think tank Chatham House.

"In every other domain (of warfare) you have the concept of deterrence and ... in the fullness of time we would expect to get into a position where people understood our capabilities."

Asked if he was acknowledging Britain did not have adequate offensive capacity at present, he said: "I don't think other countries who know anything about this are in any doubt that we have considerable capabilities in this field.

"If they have paid any attention to our security and defense review, they will have seen the signs of clear intent to remain well placed in this domain."

In his speech, Harvey had said the ability to electronically "turn out the lights" of a potential adversary would provide policymakers with wider options than simply a conventional military attack.

Experts say the Stuxnet computer worm identified this year -- and widely suspected to have been built by a state intelligence agency to attack the Iranian nuclear program -- shows the increasing sophistication of cyber weaponry.

Clear Intent

A recent parliamentary report said British communications spy agency GCHQ had indicated China and Russia posed the greatest threat of electronic attack on Britain. Both states are seen as having prioritized cyber warfare as a way of getting around U.S. conventional military dominance.

Harvey told Reuters it was not possible to say how much of the 650 million pounds would be sent on offence, and that some attack techniques might be developed as a side-effect of research to improve electronic defenses.

Security experts say GCHQ's uniquely close relationship with U.S. agencies has long been key to its status as a world leader, far exceeding any cooperation with European allies.

Britain and France last week agreed to set up a military cooperation pact seen aimed at preserving geopolitical clout in the face of the spending cuts -- but Harvey said there had been little discussion so far of the sort of cooperation on cyber warfare that Britain has long had with the United States.

"It's not something we've specifically discussed in any detail with the French," Harvey said. "It is true that we have a particularly close relationship with the United States on this."

(Editing by Mark Trevelyan)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A923Z20101110





Gov and Telcos in Aussie Wiretap Death Match

'Wiretaps are fine. You are wrong, wrong, wrong!'
Jane Fae Ozimek

When it comes to telecomms technology, who are you going to trust? Senior executives in some of Australia’s largest telcos? Or a high-ranking bureaucrat from the Federal Attorney-General’s Department?

It’s a close call, but lines were drawn and disagreements laid out in the open yesterday as the Senate's Legal ad Constitutional Affairs Committee [1] met to review Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill [2].

The Bill itself is part of legislation that would amend telecommunications interception legislation, making it easier for law enforcement to wiretap new technology as it emerges. While business leaders condemned the proposal for imposing potentially "onerous requirements" on the Australian telco industry, the top civil servant hit back, describing their attitude as quite simply "wrong, wrong, wrong".

The controversial Schedule 2 requires telecommunications providers to notify the government of any network change to the system that is likely to have a "material adverse effect" on the ability of the organisation to comply with its other obligations under the bill or existing legislation.

According to Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), chief executive, Chris Althaus, this proposal was of major concern and should be scrapped. He told the Committee: “It is a schedule which is providing what we regard as onerous requirements on industry, and that has the potential to limit partnerships and outsourcing by Australian companies.

"It creates a non-technology-neutral situation with uneven requirements in Australia versus other places in the world. It certainly will create uncertainty and high levels of risk. It certainly will delay and potentially limit the rollout of innovation and innovative products and constrain our members and the industry’s ability to assemble competitive packages."

Mr Althaus was seconded by Telstra manager, future networks and services, regulatory operations, Michael Ryan, who warned that the proposal could place an additional burden on telecommunications companies looking to provide cloud services.

He said: "Providers [of Cloud services] in Australia can be telecommunications related companies or they can be independent software related companies, so we end up with some real discrepancies with what is proposed in Schedule 2 in that if a telecommunications company wants to package up some Cloud computing with some telecommunications services it is providing it appears to get caught up in Schedule 2 but a purely software house apparently wouldn’t.

"Likewise these services can be supplied directly from overseas, but if we want to be involved and make it easier for our customers by putting together a total package of services then we seem to get caught up with additional notification required by this process."
They just need to write a letter

His views reflected fears that Australian-based telcos like Telstra will be disadvantaged relative to non-telco competitors, such as multinational cloud computing vendors like Google and Amazon.

Optus manager, regulatory compliance and safeguards, Michael Elsegood further warned that an issue with the bill in its present form was that definitions such as "system change" were far too broad.

However, a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Department, national law and policy first assistant secretary, Geoff McDonald rejected claims by the three telcos, saying: "They're wrong, wrong, wrong".

He went on: "They just need to write a letter or advise us.

"All they gotta do is give us a letter, and outline some of their plans — it's not burdensome."

"They must think we are expected (sic) them to provide a whole prospectus or something like that. It's the most general description about what they are doing — it's there to help them."

He also added that while the department was prepared to consider further clarifications to amendments, they had been criticised previously for "excessive verbiage in Bills".

The Committee also heard from Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim , who warned of potential gaps exist in the privacy safeguards in proposed Bill.

Asserting that there needed to be a balance between the public’s national security interests and its privacy interests, Pilgrim said: "At the outset I would note that the application of the Privacy Act 1988 to those Australian intelligence agencies, Australian government law enforcement agencies and state law enforcement agencies covered by the proposals in the Bill varies, thereby leading to some potential gaps in privacy protection.

"The Office’s interest is in ensuring that consistent application of sound privacy principles in relation to these proposals, coupled with oversight by the appropriate regulator as necessary."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...s_legislation/





Stage Set for Showdown on Online Privacy
Edward Wyatt and Tanzina Vega

After “do not call” lists became popular, more than 90 percent of people who signed up reported fewer annoying telemarketing calls. Now, privacy advocates are pushing for a similar “do not track” feature that would let Internet users tell Web sites to stop surreptitiously tracking their online habits and collecting clues about age, salary, health, location and leisure activities.

That proposal and other ideas to protect online privacy are setting up a confrontation among Internet companies, federal regulators, the Obama administration and Congress over how strict any new rules should be.

In the next few weeks, both the Federal Trade Commission and the Commerce Department are planning to release independent, and possibly conflicting, reports about online privacy.

Top Commerce officials have indicated that the department favors letting the industry regulate itself, building on the common practice of user agreements where companies post their privacy policies online or consumers check a box agreeing to abide by them.

Top trade commission officials, however, have indicated they are exploring a stricter standard, one that requires a “do not track” option on a Web site or browser similar to the “do not call” lists.

The two agencies have even tangled over which will release its report first, a decision that could set the tone for the clash to follow. People close to the talks say that, at least for now, the Commerce Department has been given the nod, provided it can complete its report soon.

Consumer advocates worry that the competing agendas of economic policy makers in the Obama administration, who want uniform international standards, and federal regulators, who are trying to balance consumer protection and commercial rights, will neglect the interests of people most affected by the privacy policies. “I hope they realize that what is good for consumers is ultimately good for business,” said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America.

In addition, the major online companies have the reports in their sights, worried over a raft of potential new regulations. They would prefer that the industry continue to police itself.

“Targeted ads are helpful and ad competition is helpful,” said Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, which owns the online advertising exchange DoubleClick. In a conversation last week at The New York Times, Mr. Schmidt said that the explosion in online consumer monitoring was increasing friction about how strict the privacy limits should be. And, he added, “it’s going to get a lot worse.”

The White House, meanwhile, has broader goals. It set up its own interagency panel that will look at how to protect consumers while also making United States companies more competitive internationally. It also wants to ensure that any restrictions do not impede law enforcement and national security efforts.

Congress also is expected to intervene, and this may be one area where there is bipartisan cooperation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the trade commission and privacy issues, will soon have a Republican at its head, but members of both parties in the House and Senate have recently called on companies to account for intrusions or breaches of consumer privacy.

Which agency or group leads the debate could go a long way toward determining the result.

“There is going to be a lot of confusion over the competing proposals and which version Congress and the American people should pay attention to,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a consumer advocacy group. “We especially fear a policy that is designed to advance the competitive positions of U.S. companies and will undermine new pro-consumer protections at the F.T.C.”

Officially, Commerce Department and trade commission officials say they see the two reports as complementary. The commission will most likely address “privacy by design,” or how privacy features may be built into browsers or Web sites. It will also encourage greater transparency about when data is being collected and how it will be used, and the need for clearly worded privacy or user notices.

The Commerce Department will focus on global and domestic privacy laws, and will have a broad perspective on privacy issues, officials say. In an address last month at a meeting of privacy commissioners in Jerusalem, Lawrence E. Strickling, an assistant Commerce secretary, said he believed in “a strong role for voluntary but enforceable codes of conduct.”

Jon Leibowitz, the trade commission’s chairman, told Congress in July that the commission was exploring a stronger standard — whether to propose a “do not track” feature. Julie Brill, an F.T.C. commissioner, said she would personally favor such a mechanism.

According to Lee Tien, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a “do not track” system most likely would be built into a Web browser or function as a plug-in. It would send a signal telling a Web site and the content providers and advertisers that the user did not want to be tracked.

That would differ from current browser settings, which can prevent the placement of cookies on a computer. “It’s a policy complication, not a technological complication,” Mr. Tien said.

Marketers hate the idea. “You simply can’t just turn off tracking,” said Mike Zaneis, a vice president at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. “That’s the way interconnected systems talk to each other.” Such a mechanism, he added, would be “troubling and difficult to implement at a technology level.”

Consumer advocates worry that the Commerce Department will look more after businesses than after consumers, perhaps undermining the ability of the trade commission to enforce the rules, whatever they turn out to be. The Commerce Department announced its intention to conduct its own privacy study in April, roughly six months after the trade commission began its project, leaving consumer advocates thinking that the two bureaucracies didn’t see eye to eye.

“The Commerce Department has never been a consumer advocacy agency,” said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the United States Public Interest Research Group. “They generally take the view of protecting special interests.”

Commerce Department officials say they have planned to address privacy rights since the 2008 presidential campaign. “In the 1990s, the Commerce Department had an extremely prominent role in developing what we think of as Internet policy, and we are reinvigorating that historical role,” said Marc Berejka, a senior policy adviser there.

David C. Vladeck, the director of the bureau of consumer protection at the F.T.C., said the agency would keep its focus on enforcing the law. “Because we have the franchise on policy enforcement, we will undoubtedly retain a leading voice on privacy policy,” Mr. Vladeck said.

While both agencies say they will propose strengthening privacy protections, the Obama administration is also worried about the prospect of tougher international privacy standards.

Last week, the European Commission called for stronger Internet privacy protections and for an overhaul of the European Union’s privacy rules to address social networking and targeted ads. European nations can also draft their own standards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/bu...10privacy.html





Nevercookie Eats Evercookie With New Firefox Plugin
Mike Lennon

Anonymizer, Inc., a company that helps protect consumer’s privacy and offers anonymity solutions, announced today that it has developed Anonymizer Nevercookie, a free Firefox plugin that protects against the Evercookie, a javascript API built and made available by Samy Kamkar (same guy who brought you the Samy Worm and XSS Hacking to Determine Physical Location) who set out to prove that the more you store and the more places you store it, the harder it is for users to control a Web site’s ability to uniquely identify their computer.Nevercookie Plugin

The plugin extends Firefox's private browsing mode by preventing Evercookies from identifying and tracking users.

"Recent developments in Web tracking technologies have rendered the privacy tools built into browsers almost completely ineffective," said Lance Cottrell, founder and chief scientist for Anonymizer. "Anonymizer Nevercookie will close the gap between Firefox's privacy features and actual privacy so that when you go into private browsing mode, you are truly protected."

Evercookie is a new, more persistent cookie form that enables the storage of cookie data in a number of different locations, such as Flash cookies and various locations of HTML5 storage. This allows websites to track user behavior even when users have enabled private browsing. Because an Evercookie stores data in locations outside of where standard cookies are stored, an Evercookie can rebuild itself unless users go through a number of steps to completely clear and reset their local storage.

Anonymizer Nevercookie simplifies this process and eliminates the manual steps required to completely remove Evercookies. And it does so without also removing all of the necessary cookies that a user actually wants to keep, such as those for browsing history and remembered logins. When Anonymizer Nevercookie is engaged along with Firefox's private browsing mode, it quarantines an Evercookie and removes it after the browsing session.Subscribe to SecurityWeek

Dr. Elie Burzstein, a noted Web security researcher at the Stanford University Research Lab, stated: "My testing and review found that when using Anonymizer Nevercookie along with Firefox's private browsing mode, users are protected from all of the currently known tracking systems that use browser features to follow users across multiple sessions, such as Evercookie. Specifically, Nevercookie prevents abuse to both the Adobe Flash Local Storage Object (LSO) and Microsoft's Silverlight Isolated Storage (MIS)."

The company says that Nevercookie will be available as a free download later this month.
http://www.securityweek.com/nevercoo...firefox-plugin





Shhh... Opera Holds the Web's Most Valuable Secret

Eric Schmidt's nightmare
Andrew Orlowski

Without anybody noticing, Opera has amassed one of the world's most valuable commercial resources. And the funny thing is, it isn't going to do anything evil with it. Marketing, new media and technology pundits may have to rethink a few things once they digest the size of Opera's well-kept secret. It is possible the gurus may have spent years barking up the wrong tree.

At current growth rates, Opera will soon overtake Google as the owner of the largest transaction farm on the web. It is the Opera mobile web cache. Google currently handles 85 billion transactions a month. From 2008 to 2009 Opera grew from 21 billion to 36.9 billion. It is growing faster than Google, and at some point in the not-too-distant future, on current trends, Opera will overtake it. Users also spend more time in the Opera engine than the Google engine, which spits most people out to other destinations.

So what does Opera plan to do with this trove? First, let's have a look how it came about.

Cache riches

Six years ago, two Opera engineers came up with a way of saving mobile operators money, by compressing web pages and sending them over slow, high-latency 2G cellular links in binary chunks. WAP had tried to do the same thing with WSP, but nowhere near as efficiently, and WAP required websites to created content in the WML format.

Opera's insight was that CPU time on servers was cheap, but on a humble mobile phone, CPU and bandwidth were very expensive. A web page may need to talk to 20 other servers, and some of these need to talk to other servers. This bricolage then needs to be reassembled locally, a task that has increasingly taxed CPUs over the years. (A CSS file contains conflicting positioning information using several co-ordinate systems - these are resolved locally.)

Opera initially offered the technology as a caching proxy [1] to operators, called Mobile Accelerator. Then it decided to offer it directly to end users, via a new small lightweight browser [2] that talked directly to a proxy hosted by Opera itself. The Opera Mini client could run on all kinds of phones and its popularity grew and grew. Opera's servers, which were originally in its downtown Oslo HQ, had to be moved outside, and soon became a major server operation. You can see it pictured here [3].

Now compare Google's "transaction engine" with Opera's "transaction engine", and the Norwegian's offering looks potentially very valuable indeed. Users spend far more time passing through the mobile cache than they do on Google. As well as searches, it contains destinations - news pages, social networking pages and emails. That's what behavioural advertisers want. This wouldn't be hard to do, and would involve injecting an advertisement into the binary stream that trickles into the Mini browser. But it's also precisely what makes it a No Go zone for the company, says Opera.

Because its users trust Opera with such intimate information, the company feels it can't engage in any Phorm-like behavioural exploitation. Break the bond of trust and they'll destroy the business. Once upon a time, Google had a similar philosophy - Don't Get Too Creepy Today (I may have mis-remembered that). Even Google does behavioural advertising now, but it's very careful not to use the b-word [4].

In addition, Opera doesn't feel it needs to. Opera has a few ideas on how it will make money in the future however, and some are evolutions of what it does today. So we'll examine these for a second, before looking at what it's got planned.

Auctions speak louder than (key)words

Today Opera's income comes from three streams: licensing and royalties in one stream, income from active users and transactions in another stream, and "internet economy" income such as driving referrals to search engines as a third. The latter, by the way, is what keeps Mozilla afloat. So mobile networks pay to use Opera's server technology because it saves them bandwidth, and improves the end-user experience.

Opera believes the future is transactional, which today amounts to less than 10 per cent of web advertising. So it's sitting tight and waiting. It's got an interesting trick up its sleeve, though.

You might think of the pipe between Opera and the user as a private channel. It's tempting to inject ads into that binary stream, behavioural or otherwise. Instead it's doing something subtly different. Opera is going to allow advertisers to compete with other ad networks for ordinary web pages. In January, Opera acquired AdMarvel, which it maintains with its own brand [5]. AdMarvel has an unusual approach. It isn't a conventional ad network, but rather performs arbitrage on competing ad networks, to allow advertisers to find the most effective properties for their ad spend. AdMarvel will swap out a Google advert for a rival ad network.

How it works today: advertisers bid on an ad network for keywords.

This puts it on a collision course with some of the most powerful forces on the web. Ad networks hate arbitrage, even though it's a valuable market function that lowers the cost of advertising for ordinary people. Google all but bans it, periodically kicking out publishers who it suspects of the practice [6]. Google (and other ad networks) would rather you thought of them as "auctions", which are ersatz substitutions for the pure market.

Opera introduces competition between ad networks for keywords

But we'll never know the true value of a keyword on a given day, at a given time, unless the ad networks are made more transparent. It's not a question of if, but when, the doors are blown off the keyword auctions. Whether it's Opera that pushes the plunger remains to be seen.

The value of your cache

Critics might point out that Opera's mobile web cache is restricted to certain markets - markets where mobile browsing is cheaper than landline internet access. When these mature, eventually landline will be cheaper, and the value of the cache will diminish. A similar argument is that once markets mature they buy "real" web browsers, such as the rich applications found on the iPhone and Android, and have less need for the mobile version.

There's merit to both arguments. But it assumes Opera will stand still. Today, Opera Mini offers users a blazing fast experience on the iPhone that makes the native built-in web browser - which is excellent - feel painful. The fundamental technology reality is that it is cheaper to render on the server. For many instances this will continue to be true, provided that Opera continues to innovate and add value. Even on the fastest wireless network you can find - try loading a page on each, and then hit the back button.

I was hugely impressed with the patience and quiet, understated confidence of Opera on my visit. It reminded me of visiting Google 10 years ago, but without the self-conscious goofiness. And so it may not be in keeping with Opera's heritage to pick a bloody fight with Google. Then again, it may succeed without having to. As we've seen with the EU browser ballot, Opera is a pretty tenacious fighter itself.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...saction_cache/





My Own Private (Rental) Island, in the Bahamas
David Carr

SO the idea was this: Six days with my wife on an uninhabited, mostly unpowered Bahamian island.

My first thought? Alcatraz is an island too.

For reasons I can’t fully explain, I experience free time as a kind of a provocation, and a week by the ocean, with all of the lying on beach chairs and staring at turquoise waters, has always struck me as less an escape than a kind of feckless surrender. Add to that a chronic need to both feed and be fed by the so-called digital grid — the e-mail, the Twitter, the RSS feeds — and it becomes clear that distraction is my distraction. The last time I got on an airplane without a laptop, there were no laptops.

No more than a small rise of volcanic rock, shells and sand lying all by its lonesome off Long Island in the Bahamas, Little Deadman’s Cay would seem well cast either as a paradise or prison with palm trees. It’s not easy to get to — you fly to Nassau and then take a prop plane for 165 more miles to Long Island, at which point you take a five-minute boat ride to this 9.5-acre private island that rents by the week.

Once there, there would be no daily list of activities, sightseeing trips to knock out, television or business centers I might use to “check in” at work. Instead, just a solar-powered house, two small beaches and a few walking paths measured in feet, not miles. There was only one thing on the island that might interrupt the séance of serenity and relaxation. Me.

When we arrived on Long Island, Noel, one of the nicest people on an island that has its share, pulled up in a salt-encrusted truck to pick Jill and me up. We had been told that we could buy provisions there, and we ended up in a grocery store that felt somewhat bereft. Seeing the limited choices, I went feral, grabbing dented cans of unknown provenance — surely this hominy will come in handy! — and pulling a steak black with freezer burn from a cooler. My wife gave me a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding look and grabbed some frozen shrimp instead. We piled the groceries into the bottom of the boat and took a ride that was just a mile, but might as well have been 30, across water that never got more than three feet deep, out to the little island in the distance.

Walking up a path past a welcome sign painted on old buoys, I surveyed the available diversionary assets: a modest house with three bedrooms, a dock, an iffy boat, a few beach chairs, a deck and very little indication that there were any other people on the planet. After Noel and the boat pulled away, the fading of the sound of its motor left behind a suddenly loud silence. I busied myself putting away food, inspecting the systems that would provide us with light and water and doing an inventory on the available technology. There were puzzles, ancient board games and some old swimming fins.

But it had been a long commute — a day and a half, four flights and a boat ride — so I grabbed a book and headed for a canopy just off a beach that belonged to only us. Jill came down, too, and between marveling at the beach and our good fortune, we took lazy swims in the Atlantic. Once the sun started to set, we headed up to the house to watch it from there, and it was a doozy.

Dinner presented the first challenge. The barbecue was an apparatus I had never seen — imagine a small flying saucer sitting atop a pole — and I’d planned to make pork chops glazed with herbs, local lemons and bit of honey. The charcoal started incredibly slowly and put off a very indifferent heat. As I watched the cooking time expanding into hours, not minutes, I became frantic. But the alternatives — starting over or taking a creaky boat to God knows where — brought me back to the present moment. Then it occurred to me: I am waiting for a slow fire to slowly cook these pork chops. I have no place to be, and the boat anchored off-shore sits low because its bottom is filled with water. And even if the boat was seaworthy, I have no knowledge of the shoals and shallows that surround us. What’s the hurry, really?

As I sat on the deck nursing a book and the fire cooking our dinner, the photovoltaic lights on the plastic tables on the patio winked on with meager yet thrillingly unexpected rays of light. For the next week, this would be one of the major events of each day.

Using a flashlight, I saw that after about two hours, the pork chops were nearing an edible temperature and went inside to put on some rice. I turned on the lights. Nothing. I fruitlessly examined the three-inch-thick manual on the “complicated simplicity” of the solar and wind systems in the house. Built “green” back in the ’80s, it had the ancient, makeshift infrastructure one would expect. We sat in the glow of the gas stove cooking the rice and then found an oil lamp to eat by. The flame that illuminated our faces revealed goofy grins.

When I stepped out after dinner, I was greeted by a full moon and went back to the beach to read by flashlight. But I never turned the light on, never opened the book. I just sat there.

OUR second day was powered by vestigial mainland anticness that would fade with each day. I walked from one end of the island to the other, which took about, um, seven minutes, and that long only because of the thicket of mangrove that hemmed in the paths. The shells and sharp rocks that hosted tenacious, weird little flowering plants gave way to sand at the northern tip, which framed a view of the next island over; it looked (almost) shallow enough to commute on foot. The southern tip had a rock overhang and deeper waters that held the promise of highly local snorkeling.

But all paths and common sense led back to our little beach, a short walk from the house on the western side of the island. It was a peach, shallow and sandy until 50 yards out in the water, and then the bottom dropped down a bit. There may be better beaches for body surfing, but this was on the very high end of swimming and wading spots. We alternated between the cabana and the water, sometimes plopping on the beach a bit until we got too hot.

These are the things I carried: an iPad jammed with various kinds of media, enough batteries to stock a Wal-Mart, a BlackBerry, a bunch of DVDs, 7,000 songs on my iPod, and a bottle of extra virgin olive oil.

These are the things I needed: My wife.

Had I been on Little Deadman’s Cay by myself, I would have gone mad fairly quickly and begun speaking to coconuts or at least banging them together to hear some noise beyond my own breathing. On this trip, Jill was the necessary luxury.

Four weeks after first meeting, we impulsively took a road trip from Minneapolis to Taos, N.M., for some skiing. You learn a lot about a person on a long trip: how game they are, whether they get hung up on misdemeanors, whether they are content to see what is around the next bend. On the way back, probably somewhere in Iowa, I decided I would marry her if she would have me.

We are remarkably different. She is well turned out, while I have been known to use a kitchen sponge to gussy up my pants for work. She made sure that she brought a case of the local beer and a bottle of Patrón tequila. I tend to end up in handcuffs when I drink, so I never touch the stuff. She sees a hot day on the beach as a glory; I see it as a kind of open-air microwave. She works to live. I live to work.

Jill was content with simply becoming part of the island’s landscape, while I spent far more time in the kitchen than was necessary and busied myself examining every aspect of the house and island. In reading the thick manual on the house that had accrued over the years, I read about Billy Boy, a Bahamian bananaquit bird that visited the house. I spent an hour calling his name un-self-consciously — who was there to hear me cooing? — and spreading sugar around that mostly summoned ants. Just about the time I began to lose interest, he became brave enough to land right in front of me. We became friends, or at least I felt the love. Billy Boy was both a diversion and a fellow traveler. I beckoned him daily with a variety of comestibles, although sugar worked best.

The lack of larger concerns meant I took an extreme interest in the quotidian aspects of life. Making a decent cup of Cuban coffee with the French roast we brought, some Parmalat and a paper towel that served as a filter didn’t make me crafty or superior; it made me glad for the cup of coffee and made me taste all its corners.

It was sad that we had only a desultory array of groceries to work with, but each night I would spend hours conjuring magic from a limited universe of ingredients. Doritos are not an intrinsically handsome food, but when paired with a local avocado that took days to ripen, they became transcendent.

The fourth day in I wanted fettuccine Alfredo. I’m a good cook, but on the island I had no colander, no large sauté pan (we didn’t find it until the end of the trip) and no cream, and the butter we had was of a color found neither in nature nor a paint sample book. Still, I had time, along with powdered cheese, flour, water and dried herbs. I goosed, fussed and coaxed the mix under a very low flame. When will dinner be ready? None of your business, have another beer. The pasta was exquisite, not O.K.-for-island food, but remarkable.

As anyone who has ever traveled to the third world will tell you, the list of ingredients needed for actual survival is very short. After the power was out, I worried about water because the pump had no power. But on the second night, a hellacious storm moved through with thunder that clapped us both out of bed. I shot up to lay buckets out into the storm and to turn a wheelbarrow upright so we’d wake up to plenty of water in the morning.

I’d walk the flats, noting the blue depressions in the sand where the bonefish had been feeding on crab, but never managing to see the flash of the fish themselves. On one of my walks through the scrub that crawled across most of the island, I locked eyes with one of the tiny lizards that were everywhere. We had a big old stare-down contest. He won, but I gave it my all.

Jill and I did take the boat — a large, underpowered Whaler that leaked up to a point and stopped once the bottom was full — for a cruise to an amazing snorkeling spot. We had no maps, no GPS and no knowledge of the dozens of identical-looking islands around us, but I had to go somewhere. We made it back after a few wrong guesses, the rise of the house distinguishing our island from the uninhabited ones around it. We also spent an entire afternoon using the anchored boat as a sun deck, its slow rocking sufficient to the task at hand.

After I arrived, I had booked a local guide to go bonefishing on the fifth day for fear I would need something to look forward to, but while I enjoyed my hapless effort at fly fishing — the guide caught fish, I reeled them in — I would have been just as happy back at Little Deadman’s Cay.

There were trials. As my friend John always says, “If you want to live in paradise, you’re going to have to learn to share it with a few critters.” A busy group of sand wasps decided to build a nest in our cabana, and I watched with mild interest until they started defending their new home. The gas-powered refrigerator never really worked, while the freezer did, so we used a giant cooler that we opened as little as possible and rotated in small amounts of ice while letting water out the bottom. And while Noel came out to check on the house and bring some ice a few times, I spent time poking around the utility room full of batteries and meters, trying to understand how power was generated by the solar panels and windmill on hand. There was another manual, one apparently for visitors with engineering degrees, but after a few pages I realized that it was in a language I had never learned. It’s not as if I could check the Web for further details.

I did read a few books — something that has been lost in the fabric of my other life — but only at night. During the day they just felt too heavy to haul around. So what if I finished only two. Who is keeping track, really?

After four days, I had to take to the boat to Long Island to buy more supplies, but although the people there were hilariously friendly and all seemed to share the same last name (Cartwright), I could not wait to get back to a place where there were no cars.

As someone who shares New York City with a lot of other humans during the day, I didn’t really anticipate how luxurious it would feel to see no one. The beach at Cancún is great and all, but not having to spend your vacation asking permission, directions or help is a freedom that cannot be underestimated. One of the great joys of Little Deadman’s Cay was that there were no local rituals or folkways to observe, no minders to look after.

With just the two of us, the house and the island became characters, engaging us with their own rituals. When the photovoltaic lights on the deck came on, we knew the last bits of sun were about to disappear, which would be followed by a huge black moth that dropped in on the patio every night for a look. The direction of the breeze told us which room to sleep in, and the expanse of the sky would convey whether the rain was just passing over or would be hanging around for a bit.

When we were packing to leave, I looked at the plastic bag of gadgets and gewgaws that I had brought, still sealed by a twist tie. When we got back to the world, they would all jump to life with their whirring and downloading, reconstructing and reiterating all I had missed. As we took the boat back to the mainland, I thought about what life would be like if I chucked them overboard.

I resisted the urge, but when the time came and they roared to life, I boycotted for an hour or two. I knew without looking that the world had gotten along just fine without me.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/11/07...ateisland.html





Automated News Comes To Sports Coverage Via StatSheet
Erick Schonfeld

Here come the robo sports journalists. While people in the media biz worry about content mills like Demand Media and Associated Content spitting out endless SEO-targeted articles written by low-paid Internet writers, at least those articles are still written by humans. We may no longer need the humans, at least for data-driven stories.

A startup in North Carolina, StatSheet, today is launching a remarkable network of 345 sports sites, one dedicated to each Division 1 college basketball tam in the U.S. For instance, there is a site for the Michigan State Spartans, North Carolina Tar Heels, and Ohio Buckeyes. Every story on each site was written by a robot, or to put it more precisely, by StatSheet’s content algorithms. “The posts are completely auto-generated,” says founder Robbie Allen. “The only human involvement is with creating the algorithms that generate the posts.”

StatSheet started out as basically a stats database for sports junkies. It stores 500 million different stats across most of the major sports. Now, it is taking all of those stats and creating news stories out of them. It has about 20 different types of articles that it generates, from season previews to game recaps. StatSheet might analyze 10,000 data points and 4,000 possible phrases to generate a single story.

The results surprisingly readable, if a bit dry. Here is one typical lead, which was generated from stats from a game last March to pre-populate the site.:

Michigan State has ended the regular season with a good deal of momentum. On March 7th at home, the Spartans beat the Wolverines, 64-48. It was all Michigan State from the start, going into halftime up 32-14. Michigan never got close.

Some facts for this matchup: The Michigan State RPI ranking was a good deal higher than Michigan (#26 to #130). The Spartans home court advantage is distinct, and the Wolverines had no momentum and had lost 3 out of 5. The Spartans have already seen the Wolverines this year, and this win gives us a regular season sweep.

It’s not exactly riveting sports journalism, but if all you want are the facts, it does the job. I’d still much rather read a sports blogger on SB Nation, or an ESPN article, if it’s available. But compared to some of the content mill stuff, this isn’t half-bad. Each of the 345 team sites will also have their own Twitter account (which is a revival of StatTweets), Facbook Fan Page, and mobile apps to make it even easier to keep up with scores and games.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/aut...rts-statsheet/





Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine
Jeremy W. Peters

Other than perhaps the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, there were few places as despondent on election night as the Manhattan offices of The Nation, the 146-year-old journal of fiery leftist opinion.

A group of about 15 writers, editors and interns sat around a conference table and watched the results as they drowned their sorrows in bottles of Trader Joe’s red wine. Even the friendly voices on MSNBC proved little solace as the numbers rolled in, confirming a Republican resurgence across the country.

These are difficult times at The Nation, and not just because liberals are in retreat. Lately the magazine has suffered a one-two punch. On top of political malaise, it faces the economic pressures that political journals often confront when the party in power is on their side.

In the words of Victor Navasky, a father figure at the magazine who served as its editor and publisher before retiring several years ago, what is good for the nation is bad for The Nation.

So as liberal politics flourished in the waning years of George W. Bush’s presidency and reached an apotheosis with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, The Nation’s fortunes started to skid. Couple that with a recession as well as the worst advertising market in decades, and things started to look bleak.

No weekly magazine tracked by the Media Industry Newsletter has lost more pages of advertising this year than The Nation.

As of Nov. 8, ad pages were down 30 percent compared with last year’s figures, remarkable even though advertising accounts for only a 10th of the revenue. Traffic to TheNation.com has also declined recently. And since 2008, the magazine has run an operating deficit of about $500,000 a year.

Despite all the gloom, could last week’s Democratic pummeling actually have a silver lining for The Nation, once home to writers like Henry James, Ezra Pound, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and even Yeats? Katrina vanden Heuvel, the magazine’s editor and publisher, did not have to think long about that question.

“If you can’t expose the hypocrisy of this new group of Republicans, then we’re not doing our job. And I mean that,” she said in an interview from her office on election night as she sipped a glass of Champagne, defiant as Democratic losses piled up and the mood around her darkened.

“I mean you’ve got a lot to work with,” she said. “You’ve got a Tea Party caucus in the Senate, a Tea Party caucus in the House. So I think you have a lot of rich material.”

If history is any guide, Ms. vanden Heuvel could be proved right.

The Bush years were good — very good — to The Nation. After operating in the red almost every year since it was founded by abolitionists in 1865, the magazine turned a profit in 2003.

From 2001 to 2003, the magazine’s circulation leapt from 107,000 to 149,000 and kept growing. By 2006, it had reached its peak at 187,000.

The magazine’s most recent circulation report to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, however, showed significant decline. During the first half of the year, The Nation had 145,000 subscribers, who pay about $40 a year. It sold just 1,500 copies on the newsstand each week. Three years ago, newsstand sales were three times that.

Ms. vanden Heuvel (pronounced van-den-HOO-vul), who got her start at The Nation as an intern, is not naïve about the magazine’s struggles, and she acknowledged the difficulty opinion journals like hers have had breaking through in a marketplace jammed with newcomers on the left like Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo. But she remains confident about her magazine’s standing.

“The Nation — and I don’t love the word but I’ll use it — is a brand of 146-year standing. It conveys a sense of trust. This is an institution and a magazine and a cause,” she said.

There is no doubt about The Nation’s credibility as a leading institution on the left. But liberal Web sites like The Huffington Post now have vast followings of young people and a certain cool factor — something many advertisers value over intellectual prestige.

“The importance of being hot is very important to advertisers,” said Bill Falk, editor in chief of The Week, a magazine that aggregates news articles and opinion columns. “There are a lot of cool destinations on the left if you want to go there, and a lot of them are digital.”

The Nation, which Mr. Falk regularly excerpts, “sort of reads and feels like it is written by people on the left from the ’60s and the ’70s, whereas sites like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post skew much younger.”

The word “cause” is thrown around a lot at the magazine as a way of conveying that The Nation is not in it to make a profit. It is not a nonprofit institution like Mother Jones or The American Prospect, but its employees clearly have their sights set on something they feel is larger than profit.

“We’re as much of a cause as we are a business,” said Teresa Stack, the magazine’s president. “It is a passionate mission rather than a strict bottom-line managed business.”

For a magazine, The Nation has an unusual business model. Rather than relying heavily on advertising revenue, which now makes up only about 11 percent of the income, it depends mainly on subscriptions (about 60 percent of revenue) and fund-raising (about 25 percent).

The average donation is about $70 a year, with some donors sending in a little as a few dollars and others contributing thousands.

As the magazine started to face more financial pressure, it made a more aggressive push for donations and has enjoyed healthy growth in that part of its revenue, helping it balance out the loss of advertising and circulation.

A big moneymaker for The Nation in recent years has been its cruise, which people pay thousands of dollars to attend so they can listen to lions of the left like Ralph Nader speak as they sail along the Alaskan coast.

Ms. vanden Heuvel conceded that she borrowed the idea from her conservative rival, National Review. But she said the cruise now brings in about $200,000 each year.

(National Review appears to be doing quite well, having received a lift from conservative dismay over Democrats in power. Its subscriptions have increased from 150,000 in 2006 to nearly 200,000 this year. Newsstand sales have remained essentially flat for the last five years.)

The Nation has also been aggressive in the digital area, publishing on Kindle, Nook, Sony e-reader and iPad and advertising heavily on MSNBC. Ms. Stack said circulation should post a gain for the second half of the year.

The Nation is also conscious about keeping its profile high. Its writers and editors are a regular presence on cable news shows. Christopher Hayes, the Washington editor and an occasional fill-in for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, said that because the magazine has to worry less about advertising dollars, it has been insulated from the changes the continuous news cycle has forced on other publications.

“We’re not chasing after clicks, we’re not running any celebrity pictures, we’re not trying to win the morning,” he said.

And Ms. vanden Heuvel is showing few signs of worry.

“Am I a believer that The Nation will survive another 150 years? Yes, I am,” she said. Then she paused as a pang of classic liberal anxiety hit her. “Unless there’s a nuclear war.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/bu.../08nation.html





Hugh Hefner goes Willy Wonka for December Playboy
Bob Tourtellotte

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner has been called many things over the years, but a modern-day Willy Wonka may not be one of them. That is about to change.

This Friday, tucked within the pages of some 200,000 Playboy magazines on U.S. newsstands will be 10 "Golden Tickets" to the Midsummer Night's Dream Party thrown by the pajama-clad playboy known to millions of readers as "Hef."

The party, filled with Hollywood stars and Playboy models often wearing little but body paint, is one of the most sought-after invitations each year to Los Angeles' Playboy Mansion.

Generally, Hef picks the guest list. But for their December issue promotion, Playboy is opening the gates to 10 lucky winners who rip open the adult magazine not for the centerfold, or even to read an article, but for a ticket to male nirvana.

"This is the first time we've literally swung the doors open" to the public, Playboy editorial director Jimmy Jellinek told Reuters. "The average reader will go home with stories they can't tell their wives and girlfriends but will last forever."

Jellinek said he dreamed up the promotion one day when he was thinking about Wonka, the eccentric candy maker of Roald Dahl's children's book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

Wonka, of course, hides five golden tickets in the wrappers of chocolate bars, and kids around the world search for them in order to win a trip to his mysterious candy factory.

"Hef thinks of this as a golden dreams ticket," Jellinek said.

Not only will the winners get into the mansion, Playboy is flying them to Los Angeles, putting them up at the posh Petit Ermitage hotel and paying for dinner at upscale restaurant, Simon LA.

Like many other publications, Playboy's newsstand sales have suffered in recent years from competition on the Internet, but having a Hollywood star grace the cover or putting on a promotion like the Golden Ticket can entice buyers.

A recent issue with actress Tara Reid sold over 200,000 copies and November 2009's cover of Marge Simpson was snapped up by nearly 225,000 U.S. readers.

Jellinek is hoping for "pandemonium" at the newsstand this Friday. "We expect people to be fighting in the streets for these copies," he said.

But he quickly added that being at the Playboy Manson for the Midsummer Night's Dream party is completely different.

"It really harkens back to another time when gentlemen were gentlemen, and you had to be invited to get in," he said, "plus, it's sexy as hell."

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A92UG20101110





Is Your Laptop Cooking Your Testicles?
Frederik Joelving

Whoever invented the 'laptop' probably didn't worry too much about male reproductive health.

Turns out, unsurprisingly, that sitting with a computer on your lap will crank up the temperature of your nether regions, which could affect sperm quality.

And there is little you can do about it, according to the authors of a study out today in the journal Fertility and Sterility, short of putting your laptop on a desk.

The researchers hooked thermometers to the scrotums of 29 young men who were balancing a laptop on their knees. They found that even with a lap pad under the computer, the men's scrotums overheated quickly.

"Millions and millions of men are using laptops now, especially those in the reproductive age range," said Dr. Yefim Sheynkin, a urologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who led the new study.

"Within 10 or 15 minutes their scrotal temperature is already above what we consider safe, but they don't feel it," he added.

So far, no studies have actually tested how laptops impact men's fertility, said Sheynkin, and there is no bulletproof evidence that it would. But earlier research has shown that warming the scrotum more than one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) is enough to damage sperm.

Under normal circumstances, the testicles' position outside of the body makes sure they stay a few degrees cooler than the inside of the body, which is necessary for sperm production.

"I wouldn't say that if someone starts to use laptops they will become infertile," Sheynkin told Reuters Health. But frequent use might contribute to reproductive problems, he said, because "the scrotum doesn't have time to cool down."

According to the American Urological Association, nearly one in six couples in the US have trouble conceiving a baby, and about half the time the man is at the root of the problem.

Both general health and lifestyle factors such as nutrition and drug use can influence reproductive health.

However, Sheynkin said tight jeans and briefs are generally not considered a risk factor.

"Clothes should not significantly change scrotal temperature, because you are moving around," he said.

To hold a laptop on your knees, however, you need to sit still with your legs closed. After one hour in this position, the researchers found that men's testicle temperature had risen by up to 2.5 C.

A lap pad kept the computer cool and also made sure less heat was transmitted to the skin. But it didn't do much to cool the testicles, and might give "a false sense of security," according to Sheynkin.

"It doesn't matter what pad you use," he said. "You can put a pillow beneath your computer and it still won't protect you."

As it turned out, leg position played a far bigger role. When the men sat with their legs spread wide -- made possible only by placing the computer on a large lap pad -- they could keep their testicles cooler. But it still took less than 30 minutes before they began overheating.

"No matter what you do, even with the legs spread wide apart, the temperature is still going to be higher than what we call safe," said Sheynkin.

Belkin International, Inc., which sells lap pads and other electronics accessories, did not wish to comment on the new findings.

Dr. James F. Smith, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, cautioned that a clear impact of laptop use on fertility had still not been shown, and that it probably didn't play a big role.

Still, he added in an e-mail to Reuters Health, heating up the scrotum is likely to be bad for sperm production. He often asks patients that he sees for infertility if they use a laptop and, if so, suggests that they spread their legs periodically or place the computer on a desk.

Dr. Smith said the consequences of continued overheating of the testicles -- so-called scrotal hyperthermia -- probably weren't permanent, but might take months to go away.

"When interested in maximizing fertility potential," he advised, "minimize harmful exposures, eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A457320101108




NY Blogger Criticized for Posting Photos of Teen Vandals
Carlos Miller

A New York blogger who posted photos of teenagers wreaking havoc on Halloween by pelting people and vehicles with eggs, potatoes and rocks is being criticized for exposing their deeds.

Not surprisingly, the only ones who are criticizing him are the parents of those derelict teens who deserve to be arrested.

But considering that New York City police in this Brooklyn neighborhood ignored numerous 911 calls from people reporting the teens, it is unlikely that any of them will be arrested - even though some of the teens openly admitted to their crimes on their Facebook pages.

Daniel Cavanagh who pens the blog Gerritsen Beach posted screenshots of those Facebook pages along with the photos he took.

He also described in vivid detail how aggressive the teens were getting and how non-compliant the local precinct was in responding to calls.

Everyone was calling 911. There was not one person on Gerritsen Avenue who was not on the phone with 911, or the 61 and 63 Precincts desks. No police responded.

An older man in his late 60′s was driving along Gerritsen Avenue when his car was hit by eggs, when he exited the vehicle he was pelted by dozens of eggs, rocks were thrown, chucks of brick, and someone tossed a hammer. Parents and community members stepped in to protect this man and started to chase the kids to away.

As the Vollies were investigating a possible weed fire. Fire Chief John Czapp’s jeep was pelted and he was hit in the face with an egg. No police responded.

NO POLICE SHOWED UP TO RESPOND. Let’s let that sink in. After possibly dozens or more 911 calls over a two to three hour period NO ONE SHOWED UP.

Cavanagh posted his article on November 1st and so far has received more than 700 comments, mostly from people criticizing the teens, their parents and police for their inaction.

But Michelle Guiseppone, a mother of one of the teen who admitted on his Facebook page of “hitting cop cars broke 2 bus truck windows” – which you can translate anyway you want – questioned Cavanagh’s right to even photograph her son.

My sons picture should not even be taken and put on this page with out my consent! Wouldnt it be better if Mr. Daniel went to parents and police instead of posting this for everyone to sit here and gossip ???

Another commenter added this opinion as to why the cops allowed the vandalism to continue.

Guess what? That’s why these kids are getting away with this. They are kids of cops, firemen, and other civil servants. I would even say something that some of you will not come out and say: There is some corruption afoot. How can the cops show up and not do anything? How can they not show up? Please reread above for the answer as to why nothing was done. The little darlings are “protected”. I have seen this before in another neighborhood. The same things were happening and the same things I said above were going on.

A local news station reported on the controversy, but even they shied away from the controversy by blurring out faces of the teens involved.

Fortunately, Cavanagh did not buck down to the pressure, adding the following update to the original article.

Editorial note:

We’ve decided to keep the orginal post “as is”. No pictures, screenshots or names will be taken down. The pictures in question were in taken in plain sight on the street, where there is no expectation of privacy no matter what the age.

Screenshots were available publicly therefore submitted to the public domain.

Comments or pictures containing names cannot be verified. Their level of involvement has not been determined or proven. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There has been no comment by local authorities.

UPDATE: Gerristen Beach residents called Cavanagh a pedophile during a community meeting earlier this week. Check out the videos here.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/ny-blog...f-teen-vandals





Teens Find Innovative Ways to Control Their Facebook Presence
Jorge Cino

Ever heard of “Super-logoff” or “whitewalling”? They are ways to designate what some teens have been doing in order to have total control over who posts what (and when) on their Facebook page.

Imagine deactivating your account every time you log out of Facebook, and activating it again when you want to go on it. Or how about meticulously erasing each and every post, status update, link, or comment after you are “done” sharing it? If you take the Super-logoff route, then other people can’t post anything on your wall when you’re not there to filter it quickly. They won’t even be able to look you up. Whitewalling, on the other hand, keeps your Facebook content invariably current, of the moment.

At first, like social media researcher danah boyd (like that, all lowercase) points out, these Facebook habits might seem a bit over-the-top and perhaps unnecessary. And yet, they can make sense in certain high-pressure contexts. High school or ultra-sneaky work environments might be the kind of places where your Facebook activity can cost you a lot of peace of mind. Take high-schooler Mikalah’s reasoning for deactivating her profile every time she’s not online:

Mikalah uses Facebook but when she goes to log out, she deactivates her Facebook account. She knows that this doesn’t delete the account – that’s the point. She knows that when she logs back in, she’ll be able to reactivate the account and have all of her friend connections back. But when she’s not logged in, no one can post messages on her wall or send her messages privately or browse her content.

Notice that, while you or I might think that spending five minutes setting your privacy settings correctly might solve the hassle of having to deactivate your account when you log out, in reality these are two actions that accomplish different things. Mikalah and others like her want their friends to post stuff on their wall or tag them in a photo, but they don’t want them doing it when they’re not there to make sure it’s okay. Most importantly, someone like Mikalah doesn’t want any friends of friends digging up her profile when she’s not “around.” Deactivating her page literally erases her from Facebook. She becomes untraceable.

(I admit that for the purpose of this post I tried Super-loggingoff, and Super Failed. As the above picture shows, when I got to the final step, two things held me back: 1) as irrational as it may sound, the idea of actually “confirming” the deactivation did give me the sensation that I was about to lose my stuff 2) the thought of having to do these two steps every time I log in or out of FB was simply too laborious. For me, of course.)

As for whitewalling, it could come in handy if you’re one to run your mouth or get into heated discussions frequently. It might not be the equivalent of deactivating your account, but you make sure that everything stays “in the moment” and that the past doesn’t come back to haunt you. Like boyd puts it, whitewalling is basically giving the middle finger to Facebook “as a data retention agent.”
http://www.allfacebook.com/teens-fin...esence-2010-11





Sex, Drugs More Common In Hyper-Texting Teens
Mike Stobbe

Teens who text 120 times a day or more — and there seems to be a lot of them — are more likely to have had sex or used alcohol and drugs than kids who don't send as many messages, according to provocative new research.

The study's authors aren't suggesting that "hyper-texting" leads to sex, drinking or drugs, but say it's startling to see an apparent link between excessive messaging and that kind of risky behavior.

The study concludes that a significant number of teens are very susceptible to peer pressure and also have permissive or absent parents, said Dr. Scott Frank, the study's lead author.

"If parents are monitoring their kids' texting and social networking, they're probably monitoring other activities as well," said Frank, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Frank was scheduled to present the study Tuesday at a meeting of the American Public Health Association in Denver.

The study was done at 20 public high schools in the Cleveland area last year, and is based on confidential paper surveys of more than 4,200 students.

It found that about one in five students were hyper-texters and about one in nine are hyper-networkers — those who spend three or more hours a day on Facebook and other social networking websites.

About one in 25 fall into both categories.

Hyper-texting and hyper-networking were more common among girls, minorities, kids whose parents have less education and students from a single-mother household, the study found.

Frank's study is billed as one of the first studies to look at texting and social networking and whether they are linked to actual sexual intercourse or to other risky behaviors.

"This study demonstrates that it's a legitimate question to explore," said Douglas Gentile, who runs the Media Research Lab at Iowa State University.

The study found those who text at least 120 times a day are nearly three-and-a-half times more likely to have had sex than their peers who don't text that much. Hyper-texters were also more likely to have been in a physical fight, binge drink, use illegal drugs or take medication without a prescription.

Compared to the heavy texters, the hyper-networkers were not as likely to have had sex, but more likely to have been involved in other risky behaviors like drinking or fighting.

A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that about half of children ages 8 to 18 send text messages on a cell phone in a typical day. The texters estimated they average 118 texts per day. That study also found that only 14 percent of kids said their parents set rules limiting texting.

Other studies have tied teen texting to risky or lewd behavior. A Pew Research Center study found that about one-third of 16- and 17-year-olds send texts while driving. And an Associated Press-MTV poll found that about one-quarter of teenagers have "sexted" — shared sexually explicit photos, videos and chat by cell phone or online.

The latest survey did not ask what students texted or what they discussed on social networks.

One suburban Cleveland student said her texts involve non-sexual small talk with friends, homework assignments and student council bake sales.

"I text with my mother about what time I need picked up," said Tiara Freeman-Sargeant, a 14-year-old Shaker Heights High School freshman. She said she sends and receives about 250 texts a day.

Talking on the phone just isn't appealing to some teens, said her classmate, Ivanna Storms-Thompson.

"Your arm gets tired, your ear gets sweaty," said Ivanna, who also doesn't like the awkward silences.

Like her friend, Ivanna said she mostly gets A's. Whether kids who text do well in school or behave in a crazy, risky way is coincidental, she said.

"It depends on who you're talking to and whether they have their priorities straight," she said.
http://www.newstimes.com/business/ar...ens-804442.php





Reddit’s Astonishing Altruism

A Look at the Kind Heart of One of the Most Influential Communities on the Internet

Reddit.com, the popular news aggregator and social media site owned by Condé Nast Digital, has become quite a powerhouse of social and cultural clout in recent years. Founded in 2005 by Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, the site was originally intended to be much like other social news forums. Contributors submit links to stories, or they can post original content. Other users then comment on the stories, and discussion ensues.

The big difference with Reddit is that both the stories and the comments are subject to a sort of popularity contest within the community: any user can “upvote” or “downvote” any post or comment based on whether they think the topic is interesting or if they agree with the story’s message or sentiments. Upvotes move the post farther up the page, increasing the likelihood that more community members (called “Redditors”) will see it and vote in their turn. Downvoting, of course, has the opposite effect.

The upvoting system has had a number of remarkable results. For one thing, attention-seekers who post outrageous or intentionally offensive links and comments are generally downvoted by dozens or even hundreds of people with remarkable speed, pushing their noxious posts down into obscurity within minutes.. But the most extraordinary effect of this system has been the emergence of a very large, very influential altruistic movement on Reddit.

Redditors who post questions, problems, and even requests for help are very often upvoted by hundreds, and this gives their issues weight in the community. They can get their message out to thousands of people, if just a few dozen think their cause is worthy. As a consequence, Reddit has become famous as a forum for nice people, where kindness is encouraged and applauded and cruelty is put in its place.

Even more amazing has been the flood of selfless generosity on Reddit. The upvoting system has encouraged the Reddit community to be brave. As a general rule, Redditors are not mocked or scoffed at for offering advice and support to one another. The result has been an unprecedented swell of uncontrolled, unmitigated, and often unsolicited help and succor. From using software prowess to help clean up family photos to donating thousands of dollars to an individual’s cause, the Reddit community has come out in force time and again to help one another. Below are 25 of the most incredible examples of that unique brand of Reddit altruism.

1. Reddit Secret Santa

In 2009, Reddit established two gift exchanges for its community: Secret Santa, and Arbitrary Day (Reddit’s own invented non-denominational holiday). For the Secret Santa, Redditors sign up to participate, and about a month before Christmas, everyone on the list is sent an email telling them the address of the person they have been matched with.

From there, the honor system takes over: everyone who has signed up is asked to buy, wrap, and ship a gift to their anonymous address. The Secret Santa has been a remarkable success, with thousands of people lining up to exchange gifts with complete strangers.

In 2009, approximately 4,524 people from 57 countries signed up and nearly all of them — 4,256 — participated, spending an average of $37.68 on buying and shipping gifts. Redditors have spent a total of $185,617.65 on Secret Santa gifts for one another. So far, 12,179 people have signed up to participate in the 2010 Secret Santa.

2. Girl with Huntington’s Disease Given Shopping Spree

In early October of 2010, a story was posted on Reddit about a seven-year-old girl, Kathleen Edwards, who was in the advanced stages of Huntington’s disease, a degenerative brain disorder. The story told of how the girl’s neighbors, who were feuding with her parents, began taunting Kathleen about her illness, hitching a coffin to a pick-up truck outside their house and putting depictions of her as part of a skull-and-crossbones on Facebook.1

The story caused an uproar, with Redditors all over the world expressing their rage and disgust over the neighbor’s behavior. The neighbors quickly apologized, but the outpouring of support for Kathleen and her family didn’t stop. Within just a couple of weeks, a toy store owner and Redditor in Kathleen’s area, Hans Masing of Tree Town Toys, organized a shopping spree at his store for the child, raising donations on Reddit.

More than $17,000 in donations came in from all over the world. Kathleen was given a limo ride to the store and a red carpet to lead her in. When she had shopped to her heart’s content, her family wrote an enormous check to Mott’s Children’s Hospital to buy toys for other sick children. Below is a video of her big day:

3. Operation Birthday Boy

During the first week of September in 2010, an anonymous poster put up an invitation to William Lashua’s 90th birthday party on the popular site 4chan. Within minutes the invite had been reposted on Reddit, and the very next day, cards, flowers, and gifts began arriving at William’s door. On the day of his party, September 4th, a few Redditors and 4chan users who lived in the WWII vet’s area even showed up at his party. According to William’s grandson, 5 UPS trucks showed up on the day of the party with offerings from kindly strangers. The party was a smash hit, and William was one happy nonagenarian.

4. Reddit Restores Last Photo of User’s Mom

On December 4th, 2009, Redditor “elmstreeter” posted this message:

“My mother died of cancer yesterday. This is the last picture of us together and I wondered if anyone with mad Photoshop skills could touch up the picture and remove the oxygen cannula. I would greatly appreciate anyone who could be of assistance.”

Hundreds of people responded over the next few hours. Those with no Photoshop skills simply sent their condolences and kind thoughts; hundreds more also included their best efforts at touching up the photo. By the time the funeral was held more than one thousand people had replied, and elmstreeter was able to choose one of the newly retouched photos to include in a collage at the service.

5. One Random Redditor Buys Another a New Monitor

One day, Redditor “emorrow64″ posted a picture of a plastic monkey, a gift from a co-worker, perched atop an ancient-looking CRT monitor. While most people posted comments about the monkey, their own personal office doo-dad collections, and so on, one Redditor, “wharthog3″: , had eyes only for the monitor. This exchange ensued:

wharthog3: Is that a CRT monitor?

emorrow64: Why yes, yes it is. My boss is a tight ass.

wharthog3: Well I am willing to offer to chip in on a new monitor, but if Reddit gets you a flat panel lcd where will you put your collection?

emorrow64: Actually for a new monitor I would build a special little shelf just for my friends.

wharthog3: Perfect, where do you work (location, not employer) and what size monitor (reasonable) do you want?

emorrow64: Seriously!? I wouldn’t be choosy, long as I could see it without a magnifying glass.

wharthog3: Yeah, seriously, a 22″ or so? And what outputs does your computer use, DVI, HDMI, or just VGA?

emorrow64: My current screen in 16″ a 22″ would be more than generous, and its VGA. gush

wharthog3: Ok, well PM me an address (are you in the US) and it might take me a week ’til I get paid, gotta check my account.

emorrow64: done and yes, U.S.

wharthog3: Ordered. Check your messages for link with tracking, ETA, etc.

emorrow64: Oh wow. You are seriously the most awesome stranger I know.2

And there it was. A random, just-for-fun post about a monkey led to a new monitor, for no other reason than a spontaneous burst of goodwill.

6. Reddit Helps Injured Boy Win Pepsi Refresh Grant of 25k

5-year-old Reece loved helping on his parents’ produce store and sharing his ideas about running the business, and fruits and vegetables in general. One day in 2008, he told his parents about an idea he had to get his classmates more excited about trying new fruits and vegetables: to let them on the delivery truck and give them free samples of foods they wouldn’t get to try at home.

Just a couple of months later, the family was involved in a devastating car accident that left Reece with a brain injury and unable to speak. Then, nearly two years later, while Reece struggled in therapy 5 days per week, the Pepsi Company announced their new Refresh Grant program, wherein the company would be awarding grants to fund projects that could benefit local communities.

Reece’s dad, Redditor “stinkeye”, immediately thought of his son’s idea, and posted it on the grant application site. Stinkeye then posted the whole story on Reddit and asked the community to make his son’s idea a reality by going to the Refresh Grant website and voting for Reece’s idea. Within days the idea had jumped to the #1 place on the Pepsi site. It was subsequently approved by Pepsi and awarded a 25K grant to make it happen.

7. Reddit and the Rally to Restore Sanity

The facts of the case are a little unclear, but it seems that after Glen Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor” on August 28, a lot of people had a similar idea at the same time: that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, the twin dragons of Comedy Central’s respective satirical news shows The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, should hold rallies of their own. Two days after Beck’s rally, Redditor “Mvelez999″ wrote, “John Stewart, please hold an event at the Lincoln Memorial. We’ll show up and show Glen Beck what half a million people looks like.” A day after that, Redditor “mrsammercer” posted his thoughts: “I’ve had a vision and I can’t shake it: Colbert needs to hold a satirical rally in DC.”3 Mrsammercer’s post caught a lot of people’s attention. Within hours of posting it, more than 7,000 people had “up-voted” the notion. Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in support of the idea quickly followed. People started sending emails to the Colbert Report staff.

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart later reported, he had the exact same notion, and had already put down a deposit on the Washington Mall for the event he was envisioning by the time the Reddit community began voicing its enthusiasm for a rally.4 When Stewart and Colbert announced their joint endeavor, the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive (later shortened to the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear), Reddit launched a massive donation push to show their support. In the six weeks between Stewart’s announcement of the event and the day of the rally — October 30 — Redditors had donated $500,000 to donorschoose.org. The rally was enormously popular, with over a quarter million people in attendance and a further 2 million estimated to have watch the event on TV. Colbert personally thanked reddit and even gave them a covert shoutout during the live election coverage by drawing the reddit alien logo and flashing it on live tv. Shown below.

8. Reddit Buys Disabled Man a New Wheelchair

The Reddit community frequently engages in acts of goodwill without having been asked to do so. The Redditors, however, are also amenable to direct requests for help. In one recent case a disabled man of 28, going by MealsOnWheels, unable to afford a new wheelchair when the one he’d had since high school was no longer operational, turned to his fellow Redditors for help. “Reddit, I’m broke and I need a new wheelchair,” he posted.

“If I sold ad space on my current wheelchair and took pics, would any of you be interested?”5

He went on to explain his situation, the back problems his chair was causing, and the cost of buying a new chair. He also included pictures of his current “antique” chair and the new model he was hoping to use. The response to MealsOnWheels’s plea for help was immediate and, in true Reddit fashion, astonishing. Hundreds of people wrote in to pledge their support and offer help, and within a few days MealsOnWheels had set up a PayPal account, received nearly $3,500 in donations, and started getting fitted for his new chair.

9. Outpouring of Gifts for a Redditor with Cancer

When Redditor “Trixare4kids” posted that she had been diagnosed with cancer and needed to find homes for her two kittens, she had no trouble finding a number of fellow Redditors in her area who were willing to help. Some months later, a friend of Trix’s posted to say that her battle with cancer was ongoing, and that Trix was very ill at the moment and heading in soon for more surgery. She asked the Reddit community if they would consider sending cards, books, funny pictures, and other small gifts to help cheer Trix up. Within a week, the PO box provided was full. The poster updated the thread with this message:

“Damnit Reddit, you made me burst into tears at the post office and I’m not one to cry in public. I went to my box just now and found 12 letters/cards, 2 postcards, 6 large envelopes and three packages….Reddit’s not just interesting links and pun threads, it’s a community of really amazing people who would take the time to make a complete stranger in a bad circumstance feel better. I absolutely cannot wait to haul all this over to the hospital tonight. I’ll be taking this huge pile of mail, all the well wishes I printed from Reddit, and a very full Ipod because a wonderful Reddit user is allowing me to raid their audio book library for her. Thank you. I can’t say that enough. My heart is full for you. I’m sure hers will be too.”

10. Reddit Starts a Suicide Prevention Site

The Reddit community is so committed to helping others with their interests, questions, and problems, however great and small, that there is even a section of the site dedicated to members who are feeling depressed or suicidal. Called SuicideWatch, the space allows anyone to post their thoughts and emotions, questions about seeking help, advice for dealing with a suicidal friend or family member, and so on.

The moderators of SuicideWatch make it clear, however, that the space is not a suicide hotline, and that there are limits to the Reddit community’s ability to help. A section of the site lists further resources for people to use. Posts on SuicideWatch range from such topics as “It’s only going to get worse from here, so why keep going” to “Lessons from four decades of depression” to I love you. Yes, you, and you and you. *Hugs*” Reddit’s SuicideWatch is among the most active suicide prevention sites online.

11. Reddit Reunites a Member With His Birth Mother

In April of 2009, Redditor “Wannamaker” posted about his plans to seek out his birth mother:

“Finally going to try and call my birth mother after 21 years, wish me luck, Does anyone in CA know a Shelly Lowry? She should be about 41.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wannamaker got far more than the words of encouragement he was looking for. A number of Redditors started doing some investigating, and before long one of them found a lead on Pipl.com. With the name and updated address provided by the fellow Redditor, Wannamaker found his birth mother on Facebook. He made contact and the two made plans to meet the following summer.

In an interview following the amazing story on the Reddit blog, Wannamaker said,

“I didn’t expect to ask Reddit at all…. I figured that I could get a word of encouragement or at least a funny joke or two…I would like to comment to Reddit, you should not only view yourself as a website for fun, or entertainment, or as a warrior against productivity and boredom, but you should be fucking proud to be here. You should be proud of the users you attract, and you should be proud of the way you run your organization. You do a great job. And as I’ve said thousands of times now, thank you, thank you so fucking much.”

12. Reddit Restores an Online Reputation

Not all of Reddit’s altruistic contributions have to do with money, or gifts, or family dramas. The Reddit community has an enormous amount of influence simply by virtue of its numbers; and sometimes that influence is used to tremendous effect solely within the sphere of the Internet. One Redditor, “CarlH”, had been haunted for 5 years by a lie that somebody posted about him, using his real name, on a website. The lie circulated, growing in popularity and ubiquity, to the point that CarlH’s real life was affected by it. The lie appeared for his full name as a top result in Google. Because of this, he was forever having to explain himself to friends, family members, and business associates.

Finally, he turned to Reddit for help, and made a post asking the community for advice on how to fight the lie and their help in overcoming its adverse effects. Hundreds of people responded; Redditors began posting links and content with his name all over the Internet, using SEO techniques to bring the new posts to the forefront of searches for his name. Within 12 hours, CarlH wrote in an update, all traces of the lie that had been following him had disappeared from the first 5 pages of Google search results. The lie was effectively eradicated.

13. Reddit Helps Pay For Member’s Mother’s Funeral Costs

Funeral costs can be overwhelmingly expensive, and during these times of financial difficulty, many people have lost the funds they had set aside for their services; many more are never able to save up that amount of money at all, and must depend on their loved ones to organize a memorial service.

So when Redditor “wilwaldon” wrote a post explaining that his mother had passed away after a 2-year battle with cancer, and that he and his family were unable to come up with the funds for a funeral, the Reddit community was deeply sympathetic and understanding. Commiseration was the rule of the day — dozens of people came out to share their stories of family loss, exorbitant funeral costs, and the nightmarish legal hassles following a death in the family. Many offered advice on how to bring down the total cost of the service, and many more offered to make a donation.

Ultimately wilwalden was able to raise nearly $500 from the Reddit community in order to help his father with funeral costs. He updated his original post to say, “The donations keep rolling in! THANK YOU SO MUCH REDDIT! My dad cried on the phone when I told him about the outpouring of support from a website of strangers that he has never and will probably never meet. You guys are amazing. I’m overwhelmed with joy!” And, as a final thank-you, wilwalden took this picture of his dad, to put a smile on the face of everyone who contributed:

14. Redditors Aid in Murder Investigation

In 2009, Redditor “hattmall” posted that the father of a dear friend of his had been murdered. There was surveillance footage of the murderer, he went on to say, but it was very poor quality and the police were having trouble using it as a lead to find the killer. Hattmall posted the clearest still shot he could get from the footage, and the Reddit community went to work.

Various Redditors used all kinds of different software to enhance the photo, pinpoint details, change angles to get a better look, and otherwise try to help. Many others posted suggestions for professional services and other ways he might get the picture and the story out to a wider audience to enlist more help. Below is the improvements community members were able to make.

15. Reddit Brings Family Music Heirloom to Life

Many long years after Matt L’Italien’s grandparents, David and Marcia Rosenthal, had passed away, the family found a remarkable artifact among the couple’s old letters and papers: a pair of love songs, with music written for the piano, entitled “In and Out of Love” and “I’ll Never Regret (Loving You)”, that the couple had written together.

Many family members remembered the couple singing and playing music together, but nobody could remember them ever performing these two songs that they’d created themselves; certainly there was no recording of it. Nobody in the family now knew how to play the piano. So Matt decided to post the music on Reddit, with the message, “My family recently found two songs on sheet music written by my late grandparents. Would anyone like to play them for us, so that we may hear them?”

Naturally, the response from his fellow Redditors was greater than anything he’d hoped for. Recordings of the song, including a number new arrangements on different instruments, started popping up almost immediately. Newly written-out arrangements for the guitar quickly followed. Some recorded a straight version, others added swing or other styles to the song. Matt and his family couldn’t pick a favorite, but they didn’t need to; they had dozens of recordings of David and Marcia’s songs to choose from. Here is one example:

16. Reddit Fulfills a Teen’s Birthday Wish and Gives Thousands to Charity

If there is one dogma that the Reddit community holds firm, it is karma: that one good deed deserves another. As happy as the contributors are to help a person in need simply for its own sake, they are even more thrilled to help somebody to achieve an altruistic goal.

So when Redditor “PatFlynnEire” posted to say that all his daughter Maggie wanted for her 16th birthday was to raise enough money to build a well of clean water in Africa, his fellow Redditors were only too happy to oblige. Pat asked for donations of $16 from anyone who was willing to help supplement the $1,000 his daughter raised on her own. Within three days, hundreds of people had contributed to Maggie’s cause, nearly all in payments of $16 or $160, and her goal of $5,000 was met.

17. Reddit Helps Procure a Visa for a Popular Web Comic Author

The popular web comic Cyanide and Happiness is authored and inked by a small group of guys, one of whom lives in Ireland. During the summer of 2010, they decided it would be easier to get the comic done if they were all in one place, and Dave the Irishman applied for a visa to work in The United States. Unfortunately, a spate of unpleasantness with US Immigrations ensued, and it looked like Dave might be stuck in Ireland. There are allowances made to award visas to successful artists, but because the comic is web-based, Immigration didn’t consider his success legitimate. That’s when his colleague, Redditor “jonatapp”, turned to the Internet for help. He made a post about the situation and then reposted it on Reddit, asking that any fans of the comic or anyone who felt that Dave was being treated unfairly to sign a petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/letdaveintoamerica/

They knew it was a long shot, and indeed many within even the eternally-optimistic Reddit community were skeptical, but in the end, the petition worked! Jonatapp posted again to say,

“This may very well mark the first time in history that an online petition has changed something, even if it was just getting a guy into the United States to make silly stick figure animations.”

18. Reddit User Gives $30 Tip to Man Stiffed on Huge Pizza Delivery

Random acts of kindness are a way of life on Reddit, but even the smallest and least Earth-shattering of kind gestures can have a significant impact on one person. One Redditor posted in a thread called “What is the cheapest thing you’ve witnessed?” and then, inspired by the spirit of commiseration and empathy, created a new post for his experience. The day before he’d delivered 30 pizzas at 1:30 in the morning, and received nothing for his trouble. Fellow Redditor “JustRice” couldn’t stand the injustice of it; he dialed the number he saw on the receipt the poster had put up, spoke to the manager, and left a $30 tip for the delivery guy.

19. Thief Who Stole a Redditor’s Car Tracked Down

One of the amazing things about being part of the Reddit community is that contributors really feel like the have the power of the entire Internet at their back. If they need the answer to a question they can’t answer, or help with something that they don’t have the technical expertise to achieve, they can bet that somebody on Reddit will.

Redditor “Thinksforfun” knew this, so when his car was stolen in 2009, he turned to the resources at his disposal. He knew the man’s name and a number of identifying details, but had no pictures, no address, phone number, or means of contacting the thief. He shared as much information as he had on Reddit, and wrote, “Reddit, one of my long time clients walked off with my $50K classic car like it was nothing. Can you help me find this guy?”

In fact, they could, and did. Using the details Thinksforfun provided, a Redditor called “FryDuck” was able to find a picture and profile of the thief on Friendster.com. Thinksforfun forwarded the information he found there to the police department working on his case.

20. Reddit Correctly Diagnoses Fellow Redditor’s Cause of Severe Depression, Saves Her Life

As previously discussed, Reddit’s SuicideWatch is among the most active suicide prevention sites online. And while it is mostly a forum of support and good will, occasionally, one fellow Redditor is quite directly responsible for saving the life of another. In one such case, a Redditor called “Dpressed” posted this desperate plea for support: “I have everything I could reasonably ask for, and still I want to kill myself every day.” The usual outpouring of encouragement and thoughtful advice followed, and with more prompting, Dpressed described more about her daily life and the physical emotional symptoms she suffered to make her feel suicidal. And then, Redditor “frinklestein” posted this revelatory comment:

“My wife has suffered from similar feelings for the past 4-5 years, and after therapists and anti-depressants did very little to help after initial success, we stumbled across accounts of these and her other symptoms (weight gain, excessive tiredness, IBS, lack of concentration, etc.) from people using the Mirena coil for contraception, as she was. She had it removed, and within a week I had my wife back. Any hormone-based contraceptives can do this, we’ve found, but not a single person in the medical profession ever even asked about contraception in all that time. Based on our (admittedly biased) trawling of the net, the mirena coil specifically has a very high incidence of it, and it’s comparatively more severe too.”

A few weeks later, Dpressed returned to the post and replied to frinklestein to say that, amazingly, his diagnosis was correct. She had been suffering from the same hormonally-induced depression, and in the few short weeks since learning about it, was already doing much better. She edited her original post to say, “A comment on this post helped me find out the reason for my depression and now it’s gone! I explained the story here. THANK YOU to all of those who posted, who cared, but a very special thanks to frinklestein. You saved my life.”

21. Small-Time Developer’s Iphone Game Made a Hit By Reddit

iPhone developer Matt Rix spent a year developing a new game called Trainyard, a puzzle app where the player must build increasingly complex train tracks. The game was a moderate critical success upon its release in June, but made very little money. Rix created a demo of the game, which earned him more popular recognition. Before long Apple approached Rix about featuring a paid version of his game at the Apple store.

The game took off, and reached #48 on the list of most-downloaded apps in the United States. It was at this point, once Trainyard was on solid ground, that Rix turned to Reddit. He made a post about his game and the hard work he’d put into popularizing it, then put the game on sale, lowering the price from $2.99 to $0.99. Rix went on to explain that the game had a limited run as a feature in the Apple store, and the sale would last until that ended. In that time, Rix asked his fellow Redditors to buy the game and encourage their friends to buy it. And a few days later, Rix edited his original post to add, “Mission accomplished! Trainyard is now the #2 app in the US and UK App Stores, ahead of Angry Birds.”

22. Reddit Helps Make Dream Come True for Dying Man

When Redditor “geenuts” found out that his uncle had only months left to live, he was determined to give the man one last grand gesture of love. The uncle was a lifelong lover of Audis, and drove an S4; if he’d had the means, though, geenuts told Reddit, “he’d be cruising around in an R8.”

What geenuts asked for was not money, or a free car, but simply for suggestions from fellow Redditors on how best to make his dream a reality. Hundreds of suggestions poured in, including a number of people who were willing to give geenut’s uncle the use of their own (non-Audi) luxury cars. But one poster, just happened to work for local message board called Beyond.ca, and he took it upon himself to repost the request for suggestions there. Within a day, someone living quite close to geenut and his uncle had come through with an offer to let the man take his Audi R8 out for a spin. He’s pictured above the day of the test drive.

23. Reddit Buys Young Woman A Hearing Aid

In 2009, 23-year old Redditor “focks”, a freelance writer by trade, wrote a beautiful description of her first experience in 16 years with having full hearing. Due to a noise trauma when she was a young girl, focks explained, she’d lost nearly all the hearing in one ear and had deteriorating aural power in the other. The joy of hearing again was just a brief moment in time; it was a try-out of a new pair of hearing aids at her doctor’s office. To own the hearing aids, unfortunately, was out of the question for focks, at a cost of $5,250. Unable to bear the thought of giving up on her hearing entirely, focks posted her story on Reddit and asked for suggestions to help pay for just one of the hearing aids. “Does anyone know any options I could have for how to find the same hearing aid, but for cheaper?” she asked. “Or maybe someone knows a group that can sponsor someone like me and help me pay for it?”

Many people posted suggestions and offers of help, and many offered to help pay for the hearing aid provided frocks could offer proof of her situation. After a careful search of focks’s posting history to ensure that she was on the level, Redditor Anthropoid1 sent focks $2,000 via PayPal, paying almost the entire cost of one hearing aid. Smaller contributions from other Redditors quickly helped focks to meet her goal.

By way of explanation, Athropoid1 simply said, “I always find myself wishing people wouldn’t worry so much about their financial security when they have not only enough money for food and shelter but also for iPods and Blu-Ray. After all, there are people who lack not only financial security but also finances for right now. So, for me, this is a bit of an opportunity to walk the walk instead of just wishing the wish.”

24. Reddit Community Saves Small Business

Redditor “stilesjp” works with her mother and sister, running a small soap-making company largely run on the Internet: Soapier.com. They’d been in business since 1999, but in 2009 business had slowed down dramatically, and the women were afraid they would have to shut their doors. But stilesjp, a long-time Redditor, made a post about their situation, asking the community to come and check out their variety of specialty soaps. Needless to say, quite a few did just that.

Stilesjp posted again to say, “A thank you from Soapier to Reddit… In two days, your purchases beat out our best month, ever. My mom and sister are beside themselves, and have already been gearing up for some late nights over the next week.” She went on to promise to design a new soap for the site in honor of Reddit, and began taking suggestions for scents and colors.

25. One Redditor Finds Another’s Long-Lost Art

In a post made just for fun, Redditor “spellbunny” posted a picture of an art print with the message “I also have a friend who buys paintings from thrift stores and adds to them to make them silly.” Lots of people wrote in to comment on it, compare silly art stories, and talk about found art. But one poster, “TheBlasto”, had quite a different reaction. “That’s my grandfather’s painting!” he said. “I’ve been trying to track it down for years!”

In fact, TheBlasto had even made a post about the art print entitled “Help me find this painting,” a month before spellbunny put up the picture. Thanks to spellbunny’s post and the many helpful Redditors who joined in the investigation, TheBlasto was able to find the name of the original artist and begin looking for a new copy of the print.
http://voltier.com/2010/11/12/reddit...shin-altruism/


















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

November 6th, October 30th, October 23rd, October 16th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black