Menu
Tech shorts: Internet freedom imperiled, targeted ads ineffective, and selfie safety |
|
Centralized control is destroying the ‘free’ Internet
In 1993, computer scientist and Internet activist John Gilmore said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” Not anymore. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has done a 180 – evolving from a decentralized system that no single entity could control, to a centralized one in the hands of a few governments and large corporations (Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a handful of others). The result is the death of freedom on the Internet, according to Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. In an August 5, 2015, article, TechCrunch’s Jon Evans reports on Granick’s keynote address at the recent Black Hat security conference. According to Granick, the act of patching software to maintain security creates a central authority and a single “choke point.” Granick adds that “[p]eople want to use convenient, secure, and widely available online services… but this centralizes control even further.” These services are able to enforce their own “moral standards,” such as banning photographs of breast-feeding mothers. These problems pale in comparison to what Granick identifies as the real culprit imperiling Internet freedom: secret law, which she calls “an abomination in the face of democracy.” In essence, the Internet has evolved from an open system that values freedom and privacy to a closed system predicated on security and surveillance. Granick’s solution? “[S]mash it apart and make something new and better.” Okay, but who owns all the sledgehammers? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why targeted advertising is doomed It seemed like a good idea at the time: Show people coming to web sites ads that are tailored to their interests, based on information you collect about their Internet activities. If you spend a lot of time reading about patio furniture, maybe you’re looking to buy some, so serve up ads for Adirondack chairs and umbrella tables. There’s only two problems with these targeted ads:
In a dissertation-length article, Don Marti of zgp.org explains that the true value of advertising is to present the vendor and its products as trustworthy. In essence, the advertiser is saying, “I believe this product is going to sell so well I’m willing to spend all this money on advertising in the belief that I’ll recoup it all, and more on top of that as profit.” That’s why print advertising is perceived as more effective than online ads despite people spending far less time viewing print ads. A polished, flashy ad in New Yorker magazine tells potential buyers that this is a classy product for classy people. It’s not so much the content of the ad itself as it is the context of the ad. Marti encourages online advertisers to embrace Do Not Track technologies and turn their energies and ad budgets toward applying technology to catch customers’ attention and communicate a context that gives their products prestige. Consumers will respond better to generic ads they see at the right time and in the right place. An ad that is obviously targeted specifically at them just gives them the creeps. In the meantime, Marti recommends that consumers block third-party cookies in their browsers and apply other anti-tracking methods. (In the September 8, 2015, Weekly, I described how to block third-party cookies in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Google Chrome.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Caution: Selfies can be hazardous to your health A Japanese tourist taking a selfie at the Taj Mahal falls down the steps and dies. A teenager in Romania is taking a selfie on top of a railroad car, touches a high-voltage wire, and is electrocuted. Two Russians are taking a selfie with a hand grenade, and guess what happens? Yep, kaboom! Hand grenade 2, Russian selfie-takers, 0. According to the Huffington Post’s Hilary Hanson in a September 23, 2015, article, you’re more likely to kill yourself while taking a selfie than you are to be killed in an unprovoked shark attack. Aside from questions about what constitutes an “unprovoked” shark attack, the comparison rests on some shaky statistical grounds. In fact, the experts claim that selfie-induced deaths are under-reported. A Russian government official is quoted as saying there have been dozens of selfie-related deaths in that country alone. A good friend of mine had the perfect solution to problems related to vacation photography: Leave the camera at home and buy postcards. Okay, so not many people are likely to follow his example, but the next time you strike a pose, consider letting someone else work the shutter. |
