Ministry of Intrigue

Well, there has been a whole lot of hubbub on the net regarding Flickr’s announcement of an upcoming policy change, which if you are not a Flickr user you probably haven’t seen as it is only internally displayed. Essentially, Flickr members will be required to use a Yahoo login to access their account, plus the introduction of two new limitations.

The first is essentially the culmination of what users were told to expect when Yahoo acquired the photo sharing service, and most of the reaction to that is residual angst from Yahoo’s ad-filled past (or present) added with the frustration of having to create YAL. Ultimately though, this change is minor and most of the concerns regarding this that you’ll read in the official bitch thread seem to revolve around how the service will change. Since I signed up via my old Yahoo account (after brushing the dust off), I can tell you that there isn’t really a difference. You can still use a different email address, and you aren’t required to make use of other Yahoo services. I don’t have any problem staying logged in, and it saved me the trouble of making a unique Flickr login. Honestly, I would have preferred an OpenID based solution, but this isn’t any different than Google converting its acquisitions to a centralized authentication scheme, so it is really kind of silly to freak out about.

The limitations also seem reasonable. Users are restricted to 3,000 contacts, and limited to 75 tags per photo. Why you would need more than that beats me, but there are people out there with 5,000 contacts or more. This seems to be associated with the crazy social networking practice of friend collecting more than anything else. It seems there needs to be a change in contact practice here. A lot of users have been using the contact feature as a way of tracking activity in other accounts, rather than the primary use I see for it, which is to grant certain viewing privileges to particular users. That’s no one’s fault, that’s how the feature was advertised. However, it seems that would be best handled via feed subscription anyway.

The tag issue just seems silly as anyone using that many tags doesn’t really understand how to meaningfully tag content to begin with. Of course, some of this is due to Flickr’s ill-advised feature that allows other users to add tags to your photos. Sure you can restrict that, but that also restricts the ability for others to add notes to your photo. Notes are fun way to apply comments to particular parts of your photo, letting untrusted users add tags to your photos is just asking for trouble. It would be nice to see those two permission settings split into distinct options.

In theory, this is a bummer for the pro users as the services they paid for have changed, and it has ruffled a few feathers. It probably would have been a good idea to use this opportunity to create extra enticement to switch to a pro account, by imposing the limits only on free accounts or even leaving a pittance of extra contacts/tags on the pro accounts. Then again, Flickr would probably have their users crying foul over that as well. As Jeremy Zawodny points out, these things are tricky. It doesn’t help that Thomas Hawk, the CEO of Zooomr, while an avid, and concerned Flickr user is using this opportunity to try to draw users to his company’s service. Add that to Don MacAskill offering 50% off of memberships at SmugMug to Flickr refugees, and you have got a competitor feeding frenzy.

Honestly, I don’t understand what the big deal is, and I’m pretty sure that with a little patience and a few culture changes at Flickr that this will all blow over. After all, Flickr is the most popular photo sharing site on the net, and I expect that it will continue to be even after the “Old Skool” users either stop whining or leave for some other service.

Via Boing Boing:

I’m a little late on this one, especially since I took my unplanned blog vacation.

If you haven’t seen the footage of Jon Stewart intellectually pounding conservative pundit Bill Bennett, you are missing out. Bennett appeared on the Daily Show to discuss his opposition to gay marriage as part of the current hoopla in Congress. Stewart works his magic and makes the pundit really look like a fool. Crooks and Liars has posted video footage of the smackdown, which has also been mirrored on You Tube as well as residing at Comedy Central.

The best bit:

Bennett Look, it’s a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women. Stewart:I disagree, I think it’s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

It is frustrating that Congress is wasting time on this issue once again, although the reasons behind it are most lucidly spelled out by Greg on his blog. All the same, if the conservatives insist on fighting this ridiculous battle, it’s fun to watch people like Stewart smack them back into place.

If you haven’t heard about Stephen Colbert’s scathing performance at the Annual Correspondent’s Dinner, I’m not surprised. As near as I can tell, the traditional media isn’t really covering it in much detail. This may be due to the fact that he ruthlessly tears the President and the press a new one. You can tell from some of the uncomfortable laughs from his audience that a lot of his presentation cut a little too close to home for them. But the important thing is, continuing the tradition of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report he did not relent and he said the things that the traditional media should have been saying all along.

You can watch the movie here or you can download a high quality video of the whole dinner via BitTorrent.

You owe it to yourself to watch this. I concur with Dan that this is an example of a comedian providing the real journalistic traits this country needs in its media.

Check it out.

UPDATE: When you’ve seen the video, and if you feel the way I do, join the crowd thanking Mr. Colbert.

Via /.:

Wisconsin may soon become the first state to ban the practice of mandatory microchip implants in human beings. State Representative Marlin Schneider has authored a proposal that will make it illegal for governments and companies to require RFID chips, or implanting them in employees without their knowledge. (Granted, I’m not sure how an agency would perform a stealthy implant procedure without an employee noticing, but then again, who knows what kind of technology we will see in the future?)

Apparently, Governor Jim Doyle has said he will sign the bill, which isn’t really a surprise as this is the man who has mandated that all our electronic voting machines be run on open source software.

For those of you unfamiliar with this technology, RFID is a technology where a tiny chip can be embedded in either a living being or inanimate object and it will broadcast an encoded identification signal to any receiver that requests such information using the right key. Most chips do not require a power source, although there are “active” tags (which constantly broadcast) that do require some sort of battery. This technology is already beginning to be used for a number of products or security systems, and there are even some clubs in Europe that require such an implanted chip to access VIP areas. Unfortunately, this technology has also been shown to be insecure and many (including myself) consider it to be a great danger to the privacy and security of individual citizens. For more information on RFID, I recommend you check out its Wikipedia entry, and also make sure to check out the external links referenced on that page.

As to the ban, I think this is a great idea as RFID technology is becoming more and more popular everyday. A large number of companies are already employing biometric identification (which I don’t have a problem with as long as such it is limited in scope) and requiring this kind of implant is really only a tiny step away. In a lot of ways, this proposed ban is actually somewhat visionary as it is anticipating the dangers to personal privacy in the future uses of this technology, and instead of reacting at that point when it has already become widespread, it is taking action to eliminate that threat now. Admittedly, the ban will still allow optional implants, and I can see a few ways companies will be able to finagle around this ban by using that loophole, but really RFID technology ( if it is used appropriately) is just too damn useful to outlaw completely. However, I think Wisconsin is taking a step in the right direction by protecting its citizens.

Read about the proposed ban here.

Phillips, the entertainment technology corporation, has recently applied for a patent on a new software for your digital receiver/recorder that will force you to watch commercials. The software looks for digital flags which would be embedded in the broadcast that will lock your channel in place when commercials begin, restricting you for flipping to another station during the ads. This technology will also disable fast-forward on your digital recorders during commercials, meaning they get to screw you a second time.

How ridiculous is this? In a culture already saturated by marketing, now the advertisers get to take over your television’s basic functionality? Phillips suggests that companies offer viewers a chance to “pay a fee interactively” to go back to normal viewing. Note the word “interactively,” which indicates that these payments would be made through the receiver at the time, which means it needs to make a payment each time you want to skip commercials.

From the patent application:

[0070] If a payment arrangement exists, then third MHP application 350 makes a payment so that the viewer can change channels during the display of advertisements (step 740). The program content is then displayed on screen 110 of television 105 (step 750) and the method continues. If a payment arrangement does not exist, then the program content is not displayed on screen 110 of television 105 (step 760) and the method continues.

The Bush administration has a new version of DMCA to offer you, and it’s so much worse.

In this article, Declan McCullagh of CNET news describes the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 that the administration plans to propose via their lackey Representative Lamar Smith. It’s extremely broad in range; so here are a few highlights from the original article.

The proposed law scheduled to be introduced by Rep. Smith also does the following:

• Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage. It would establish a new copyright unit inside the FBI and budgets $20 million on topics including creating “advanced tools of forensic science to investigate” copyright crimes.
• Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
• Boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.
• Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be “destroyed” or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.
• Says copyright holders can impound “records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in” infringements.

This bill has been endorsed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who claims that this law will help the justice department to… wait for it… fight terrorism.

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is “encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft,” Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, “quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities.”

You can read the soon to be proposed bill for yourself here. It has the RIAA and MPAA’s dirty fingerprints all over it.

This is just a disgusting strike against consumer rights, and if you feel about it as I do, I strongly urge you to contact your elected representatives and tell them how you feel. Urge them to instead support the Digital Media Consumer’s Rights Act (article | bill) instead.

If you would like additional resources on what you can do, you can check out IPAC’s post on this issue.

If you need further evidence on the insanity of the DMCA, the RIAA is now trying to sue a family that doesn’t even own a computer. Read about it here.