Slashdot Mirror

Here's a poll from BusinessWeek (not a left wing source). It's attached to a larger story about corporate power in general. This is one of Nader's core issues. I think 72% either agreeing or agreeing strongly that corporations have too much power qualifies at least this issue as mainstream.

I would like to point out that the Dems have not been in control the last eight years--they've had the presidency, but not Congress, and I would say that they have been functioning as one of the defenses.

Where were they with the Communications Decency Act? That's right. Democrats voted for it in Congress and Clinton signed it into law. What about the DMCA? Again, this gained wide support from the Democrats (although it has not yet been shown to be unconstitutional). The list goes on. But my original point about the Dems refusing to act as a defense was in reference to the Regan and Bush Sr. administrations when the Democrats did control Congress. They did very little during that time to stop right wing justices from being appointed to the supreme court.

Corporate powermongering does not compare to the civil rights movement--nobody is getting lynched by AT&T.

It isn't the same as the civil rights movement, but I wasn't trying to make that comparison. The civil rights movement was an example of a social movement in which people were risking there lives by giving support. The risks of supporting Nader are extremely small compared to what people have had to go through in the past, so why do we get so much critisism for taking those risks? If it isn't unreasonable to risk your life for civil rights, why is it unreasonable to risk having Bush as president now? There is a risk of abortion rights being overturned and environmental laws being gutted, but I think the abortion issue is overblown (I think the rebublicans know that they will lose congress and the presidency if they really do away with abortion). Many environmental laws have already been gutted and Gore isn't the advocate he used to be.

Just as a side note about corporations and lynching, the Shell Oil company is currently the subject of a lawsuit in California (it could actually be over now - I haven't checked on it in a while) over the murders of labor leaders in Nigeria (I think that's the country). They apparently used a company helicopter to transport members of the Nigerian military to the village where the labor leaders lived and pointed them out. They were then arrested and executed by the military. It doesn't happen here, but it does happen in third world countries and shouldn't be tolerated. I don't think this is a fringe issue, either.

I don't usually read rags like Busineess Week, but I went in for some dental abuse last week, and the cover story of that week's issue caught my eye while I was waiting my turn.

It makes for interesting/enlightening reading. I found it somewhat disturbing - partly from seeing how cold-blooded companies have become about customer service, but equally because it's really hard to fault the practices on rational grounds.

WTF are Shawn Fannings opinions being given importance? He is simply the cute mascot of Napster.

He owns very little of the company. His uncle owns a huge chunk of the company. CEO Hank Barry (a "suit" just like the music industry execs he is supposedly battling on the people's behalf) owns a huge chunk. Shawn Fanning doesn't even have a role to play in the day-to-day running of the company. 1 He doesn't set long-term policies for the company.

Extract from Businessweek: John got 70%; Shawn got 30%. ''We all knew from the beginning that this would be huge,'' recalls John Fanning. While Shawn is the public face of Napster, today he owns less than 10% of the upstart and is not involved in the company's business decisions. Shawn Fanning has no senior management position and isn't on the board. Mostly, he works on developing the company's software.

the Businessweek article

WTF is he trotted out all the time (with his trademark baseball cap)?

They are using SF simply to portray the impression that the big bad music industry execs are trying to squash the "innovative" company run by a 19-year old. And remember there is not a single article which doesn't mention SF's age.

Give me a break. This company Napster is run by suits (I'm sure they have more lawyers than programmers there) backed by huge sums of venture capital.

Note to Napster suit reading this: Stop pimping SF to win sympathy from the geeks.

Shawn made Business Week's E-Biz 25, and he had some Q&A with ZDNET.au not too long ago. It's fun to watch his public discourse over only a couple months when he himself is only a handful of dozens of months old himself.

• Large screen size
• Color screens
• Oval screens
• Touch screen
• Motion video
• Cameras the size of a phone button

Links to other concept phone galleries:

ZDNet - Road to 3G
FutureZone - Telecom 99 Photo Gallery
CeBIT 1999
Wireless Review - Future Phone
WSJ - Staying in Touch
BW - The Latest Web-Phone Wonders Are...Still Out of Reach "Clearly, somewhere between the trade fairs and the marketplace, Ericsson runs into troubles"

If you look hard enough, you can find references to all sorts of fantastic phones that won't exist for quite a while.
--

You can find the article here.

For those interested, here's a related story in Business Week: Hollywood vs. the Hackers vs. Free Speech.

Suck. I love the name. It's interesting (and unoriginal?) that Business Week did a story about this topic on July 17, 2000.

--

Suck. I love the name. It's interesting (and unoriginal?) that Business Week did a story about this topic on July 17, 2000.

--

Looking for a technology to preserve privacy is about as ineffective as looking for a technology to enforce copyright laws.

Increasingly, our privacy is disappearing, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Acknowledging this, we must predict that the world is going to become a bit more exposed. Cases such as the one involving the man at the university, fired for viewing porn on the school internet, will become more common.

I would hope that we, an increasingly online global community, would seek to make ourselves beacons of tolerance and acceptance towards others, rather than desperately clinging to our privacy, out of fear of what others may do to us.

Recently, on Slashdot, I have read that because my anime watching friends and I thought that Lime and Cherry in Saber Marionette J are cute (yes, they are young, and yes, they are sexual), that we must therefor be child molesting pedofiles, and that we should be prohibited from watching anime, at least in the Western hemisphere. This would be very amusing, if people just weren't so serious about it.

But I refuse to hide behind a wall of privacy (one that will be as effective as copyright law at that), and distribute Aa Megamisama and Ranma 1/2 episodes to my friends under the digital table.

I think it would be better to promote tolerance and acceptance in this world.

I believe that there is lots of hope for our society, and by extension, me and you. American Beauty was voted as the most popular film last year. This movie is about many of these issues: Tolerance, Acceptance, and even Privacy. Because people liked that movie, I believe that we will be able to become a more tolerant society.

Please consider re-considering privacy, and please consider promoting tolerance and acceptance.

Looking for a technology to preserve privacy is about as ineffective as looking for a technology to enforce copyright laws.

Increasingly, our privacy is disappearing, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Acknowledging this, we must predict that the world is going to become a bit more exposed. Cases such as the one involving the man at the university, fired for viewing porn on the school internet, will become more common.

I would hope that we, an increasingly online global community, would seek to make ourselves beacons of tolerance and acceptance towards others, rather than desperately clinging to our privacy, out of fear of what others may do to us.

Recently, on Slashdot, I have read that because my anime watching friends and I thought that Lime and Cherry in Saber Marionette J are cute (yes, they are young, and yes, they are sexual), that we must therefor be child molesting pedofiles, and that we should be prohibited from watching anime, at least in the Western hemisphere. This would be very amusing, if people just weren't so serious about it.

But I refuse to hide behind a wall of privacy (one that will be as effective as copyright law at that), and distribute Aa Megamisama and Ranma 1/2 episodes to my friends under the digital table.

I think it would be better to promote tolerance and acceptance in this world.

I believe that there is lots of hope for our society, and by extension, me and you. American Beauty was voted as the most popular film last year. This movie is about many of these issues: Tolerance, Acceptance, and even Privacy. Because people liked that movie, I believe that we will be able to become a more tolerant society.

Please consider re-considering privacy, and please consider promoting tolerance and acceptance.

Pentium Moment (quote) "''It was our Pentium moment,'' comparing the eBay incident to the lesson Intel Corp. (INTC) learned in 1994 after the chip giant angered customers by initially trying to downplay a bug in its new Pentium chip."

BenchCrafting (mention? (do a string search!)) after that MindCraft Fiasco

FUD-EEE - The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt tactic as part of a concerted Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy to disrupt competitors

Although we're still too close to the action, I'm sure other people can come up with memorial moments of the GNU Revolution given enough thinking perspective.

LL

• I think that the rule in the commercial world is "all's fare in war and benchmarks. Love is irrelevant".

You don't have to defend the TUX benchmarks as being exploitive of some weakness with the SpecWeb test. Nobody did anything "unfair" here.

I'm finding the pro-Microsoft moderation bias around here lately a little hard to stomach. If I had wanted to read FUD surrounding Linux Benchmarks, I'd just tune into ZDnet.

I guess that moderators think someone is brave for expressing pro-Microsoft opinions that will likely catch derision from all the close-minded Microsoft bashers here. The fact is, if you write anything even vaguely pro-Microsoft here these days, and keep a cool, even tone, you're likely to be moderated way up.

An MS employee posting pro-MS Comments brave? Hardly... That employee surely have nothing to fear from an eWatch investigation.

konstant intimates that making design tradeoffs (features for speed) somehow makes a benchmark invalid.

Those who develop benchmarks are supposed to take into account the "real world". If you feel that the benchmark allows someone to compare impractical, unusable software to more fully featured software, then you should criticize the benchmark and be specific about how the benchmark is not addressing these "real world" concerns so that we can be educated and the benchmark can be improved. Don't ask leading questions that suggest that features were thrown out to the point of making a product that's not usable in the "real world". Perhaps he didn't really suggest that TUX was unusable in the "real world". No, he did something more subtle. He suggested that if features were thrown out to benefit performance, then this test was no different than if features had been thrown out to the point that it was unusable (asking "how is this different...").

Both Spec and Ingo Molnar have been quite open about the conditions of the test and the capabilities of TUX. As Ingo Molnar says here:

• "...while it's not as feature-full as Apache, TUX is a 'full fledged' HTTP/1.1 webserver supporting HTTP/1.1 persistent (keepalive) connections, pipelining, CGI execution, logging, virtual hosting, various forms of modules, and many other webserver features."

The list of capabilities given above for TUX covers what is needed by the overwhelming majority of Web sites. Sure, there may have been some usability tradeoffs, but look at the HUGE performance benefits.

So, exactly what is konstant suggesting? That it's not a "fair" benchmark because it doesn't support all of the usability features that Apache has? Or is it only a fair benchmark if TUX can do everything that IIS does?

-Jordan Henderson

Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's quote from eWatch advertising:

How does it work? Partly, eWatch says, through a little info-cleansing. "We can neutralize the information appearing online, identifying the perpetrators behind uncomplimentary postings and rogue Web sites," the company's online promo material says. Then, eWatch can "remove offending messages from where they appear in cyberspace."

Whenever a conflict arises between privacy and accountability, people demand the former for themselves and the latter for everybody else. - Brin, Transparent Society

The article implied that privacy was an issue of Freedom, which it isn't. You can still send e-mails out to whomever you like.

I also recall reading in the article that people didn't like it that when they went to check out a loan, the bank looked over their medical records to make sure that they didn't have a fatal cancer.

Hm. Why should that concern you?

Do you want to check out a bunch of cash from the bank, before you make your final check out from life, and now, this is going to spoil your plans? I can understand how a bank might want to know that sort of thing... (Ack! The terrible maw of accountability is upon us!)

What we really want is to not get into a "Big Brother is Watching You". We don't want our boss, or our leaders, or some police force, to be able to spy on us, and to be able to abuse their power...

There are other ways, than desperately clinging to our privacy at every turn. Time for another Brin quote:

Can we stand living exposed to scrutiny, our secrets laid open, if in return we get flashlights of our own that we can shine on anyone who might do us harm--even the arrogant and strong?

If we could also check out our employers emails, suddenly the picture becomes a lot clearer. Email becomes a style of broadcast speech.

The key thing is, you have to make it so that whatever one person can see, everyone can see. You have to help shape laws with your opinion, and you have to make it so that whenever there is monitoring going on, that it applies equally to the monitors. We absolutely cannot afford to have unmonitored monitors.

Or is an illusion of privacy worth any price, even the cost of surrendering our own right to pierce the schemes of the powerful?

What can you do today?

• Sniff Packets on your company Intranet.
• Sniff Packets just outside your company Intranet. If your boss can legally justify scanning emails, so can you!

In our Seattle Weekly, the headlines read "But who will watch the cops?"

In the Weekly, a Citizen Review Board was discussed. The initiative described would require paid citizens on a board to watch over sections of the police. ...so much effort, so many laws required. Then you have to delegate what the citizens can and cannot do, what authority they have, and on and on... It's a big hassle.

All you need is cameras connected to the Internet. You can be sure that at least 10 people out there will be archiving everything that happens on those cameras; you don't even need the state to pay for the disk space. Just wire up some cameras, state clearly that they are not to be interrupted, and wha-lah; immediate accountable police force.

Read: -Brin's home page, or Transparent Society for more details.

Whenever a conflict arises between privacy and accountability, people demand the former for themselves and the latter for everybody else. - Brin, Transparent Society

The article implied that privacy was an issue of Freedom, which it isn't. You can still send e-mails out to whomever you like.

I also recall reading in the article that people didn't like it that when they went to check out a loan, the bank looked over their medical records to make sure that they didn't have a fatal cancer.

Hm. Why should that concern you?

Do you want to check out a bunch of cash from the bank, before you make your final check out from life, and now, this is going to spoil your plans? I can understand how a bank might want to know that sort of thing... (Ack! The terrible maw of accountability is upon us!)

What we really want is to not get into a "Big Brother is Watching You". We don't want our boss, or our leaders, or some police force, to be able to spy on us, and to be able to abuse their power...

There are other ways, than desperately clinging to our privacy at every turn. Time for another Brin quote:

Can we stand living exposed to scrutiny, our secrets laid open, if in return we get flashlights of our own that we can shine on anyone who might do us harm--even the arrogant and strong?

If we could also check out our employers emails, suddenly the picture becomes a lot clearer. Email becomes a style of broadcast speech.

The key thing is, you have to make it so that whatever one person can see, everyone can see. You have to help shape laws with your opinion, and you have to make it so that whenever there is monitoring going on, that it applies equally to the monitors. We absolutely cannot afford to have unmonitored monitors.

Or is an illusion of privacy worth any price, even the cost of surrendering our own right to pierce the schemes of the powerful?

What can you do today?

• Sniff Packets on your company Intranet.
• Sniff Packets just outside your company Intranet. If your boss can legally justify scanning emails, so can you!

In our Seattle Weekly, the headlines read "But who will watch the cops?"

In the Weekly, a Citizen Review Board was discussed. The initiative described would require paid citizens on a board to watch over sections of the police. ...so much effort, so many laws required. Then you have to delegate what the citizens can and cannot do, what authority they have, and on and on... It's a big hassle.

All you need is cameras connected to the Internet. You can be sure that at least 10 people out there will be archiving everything that happens on those cameras; you don't even need the state to pay for the disk space. Just wire up some cameras, state clearly that they are not to be interrupted, and wha-lah; immediate accountable police force.

Read: -Brin's home page, or Transparent Society for more details.

If we could easily see into records pertaining to ourselves, this problem would never occur.

Read The Transparent Society Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? by David Brin for a well thought out map of the root problem, and a solution to it.

Here are some of the questions it poses:

Will average citizens share, along with the mighty, the right to access these universal monitors? Will common folk have, and exercise, a sovereign power to watch the watchers?

Can we stand living exposed to scrutiny, our secrets laid open, if in return we get flashlights of our own that we can shine on anyone who might do us harm--even the arrogant and strong?

Or is an illusion of privacy worth any price, even the cost of surrendering our own right to pierce the schemes of the powerful?

A security hole a week!?!?

This is going to work wonders for Micros**t. Combined with Oracle positioning itself into the 'next microsoft' (over here if your don't believe me), I'm convinced Microsoft is finally pushing themselves to their own demise! Keep up the great work you idiots. The sooner Microsoft's dominance is reduced, the sooner superior software will be an asset and poor software will be worth the equivalent to cow dung!

I think there are geek stories that the general public can understand, relate to, and hold up as role models for the young'ns.

If you look a bit back from the "Tube" page to here, you find that the fanciful tube is one of the ideas from the same people (IDEO) that helped design the Palm V and the Transmeta Web-slate. So, such a thing might not be too far off (though the title of the whole thing was "Welcome to 2010").

The whole series of stuff is pretty cool - flexible large-screen TV's, VR cave style "smart cubicles", and other cool things. The article seems to have a broken link at the end of the chain though.

If you look a bit back from the "Tube" page to here, you find that the fanciful tube is one of the ideas from the same people (IDEO) that helped design the Palm V and the Transmeta Web-slate. So, such a thing might not be too far off (though the title of the whole thing was "Welcome to 2010").

The whole series of stuff is pretty cool - flexible large-screen TV's, VR cave style "smart cubicles", and other cool things. The article seems to have a broken link at the end of the chain though.

If you look a bit back from the "Tube" page to here, you find that the fanciful tube is one of the ideas from the same people (IDEO) that helped design the Palm V and the Transmeta Web-slate. So, such a thing might not be too far off (though the title of the whole thing was "Welcome to 2010").

The whole series of stuff is pretty cool - flexible large-screen TV's, VR cave style "smart cubicles", and other cool things. The article seems to have a broken link at the end of the chain though.

Now Mr. Katz (yes, I mentioned his name, nobody freek out) brings up three cases at the end of his article that are examples of how this law is being abused, lets look at them:

The first thing is the case brought against the norwegian for breaking DVD protection. Now there are too issues here. One is that what he did is not actually illegal in Norway (as I understand the issue). This is indeed a nasty abuse of power by big government. Bad big government, no biscut! The other is the more general case, was what breaking DVD protection ok? Well, no not really, its only goal was violating copywrite, it had not productive use.

The second case is RealNetworks which has obtained an injunction against a portion of software created by Streambox. This software was desigened to get around Real's copy protected format for its streaming media. Again, up to no good.

Finally there is the case against Napster, brought by the RIAA. Now this is rather interesting based on this piece of informa tion. Down the page a bit you will find: "Under last yearís Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's hard to sue Web sites for any illegal activities committed by users. At the request of several companies in the portal industry, for example, the act generally shields sites that are classified as so-called information location tools from liability unless they directly participated in the illegal activity." Inother words, RIAA has to prove that Napster Inc was involved in the illegal abuse of copywrite inorder to hurt them. The fact that the napster application was used for bad things is not at issue, but whether or not Napster Ince conciously allowed such use. According to a lawyer (same article): "If Napster just has music generally listed and doesn't track it and doesn't know about copyright violations, then there's probably no liability," says Levi. "But if the way the site is constructed or the index is built indicates that they know the stuff is not legitimate, then the probably do. That's probably what this case will turn on: what they know."

Just to close, let me say something about the difference between civil disobediance and just disobedience. There are not of anti copywrite people who get angry when copywrite laws get enforced. If you belive that copywrite laws are unfair and that there should be no intelectual property that is fine, but the solution is to write to your elected officials, march, chant, speak whatever. If you break the law then you are just a criminal. Trying to get the laws changed on the other hand is a laudible goal. Wow, I'm gonna get flamed for that last one.

To clarify your comment:
"I think the one where Michael Milkin guest starred, where Mulder and His character switched bodies would also qualify as this type of episode."
Michael Milkin was a Wall Street junk bond trader who did time...
The person you are referring to is Michael McKean, who has been involved in everything from Laverne and Shirley to Spinal Tap to Saturday Night Live.
Mmmm...Goooogle...and HTML posting... Yummy...

"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)

Our auto-dependent mobility denies the child's. Across America children and young people are the victims of declining transit services, suffering not only from the debasement of walking and bicycling by the car but also from its depletion of public transportation. This deprivation extends throughout adolescence. In all but a dozen or so cities, the streetcar or bus taking the teenager to a lively urban core beyond the limits of the everyday has atrophied or disappeared. Walkers or even bicyclists who traveled freely to school, sports, or friends in times past can no longer make their way without peril. Sidewalks are few, cars many; even the mall is asphalt wrapped. . . .

Teenagers drive while parents shudder. The media records the death and mutilation of the gun culture, but the car culture is statistically more threatening. According to figures from the Federal Highway Administration and the Justice Department, an adolescent suburban male is more likely to be killed by an automobile than his urban peer by a gun.

LinuxOne's prospectus raises other questions. One red flag is the section where it lists its board of directors. Normally, companies have 8 to 12 board members. But LinuxOne lists only one, by the name of Paul Kraus, who is an architect and the owner of a lithography shop, according to the prospectus. Are LinuxOne's financial statements audited? Yes, by a Reno (Nev.) CPA by the name of Mark Bailey, who runs his own firm. A member of a Big Five accounting firm he isn't.

The headline for the article you linked to is (quoted, so your puny mind can comprehend) "LinuxOne May Be One Linux Company to Avoid"... The slashdot article was titled "BusinessWeek on LinuxOne".

Nowhere in either the post or the article does /[Ll]inux[Cc]are/ show up. Now, get your head out of your @$$ before you post next time.

My $0.25... use it to get a clue!

Eric

Computers are just simple turing machines. This means that everything they do is utterly predictable.

That statement can't be proven, because it's false. To site just the example I'm most familiar with, genetic algorithms and genetic programming have produced results that are unpredictable, surprising, and we would call them "creative" if a human had come up with them.

A quick search on Google turned up this article which talks about how genetic algorithms have been used to come up with some interesting designs. I'm sure there are some other great articles out there, but I don't have to time to search for them at the moment.

I wish somebody would nominate http://www.LinuxNinja.com/linux-admin/ for the ``LAME'' guide I put 2 years of part-time work into it for the good of the community. (hint hint wink wink)

(Actually I'm just trying to get noticed by the various Linux companies, because Doc writers never seem to get ``The Letter''. ;-( ) How can I ever earn my million unless I can get in on the upcoming LinuxOne IPO? (heh)

Oops, that's Steve Wildstrom <steve_wildstrom@businessweek.com>.

Oops, that's Steve Wildstrom <steve_wildstrom@businessweek.com>.

$130 million.

A Link.

Pretty sweet for what was at the time a fairly basic piece of software.

• American Banker
• Americas Job Bank
• Black Enterprise
• Business Week
• Career Pulse
• CareerBuilder*
• CareerCity
• CareerExchange
• CareerMosaic
• Caree rPath
• CareerWeb
• CareerFuture
• CitySearch
• CNET
• Dallas Morning News
• DICE
• EDN
• Hispanic Online
• HotJobs
• Internet.com
• JobOptions
• Monster
• MSBET
• NationJob
• Phillips
• QuestLink
• SelectJobs
• Test and Measurement World
• USAToday
• WETA
• WomenConnect
• Yahoo

I'm sorry. I find your argument somewhat shallow and obtuse. Saying that Bill Gates is a businessman hardly excuses him for violating federal anti-trust laws, no matter how vague you might think they are. I'll leave it to those more knowledgable of the law to argue the issue. Here's a couple of links which put Microsoft's actions in perspective of the law.

• ProCompetition
• Daily Wrap and Flow
• Consumer Project on Technology

May I give you one rhetorical question to ponder?

If Windows were really the most technically advanced and innovative operating system on the planet, would Microsoft be in court against the DOJ at this time? Somehow, I doubt it.

It's the fact that monopolies stifle innovation as well as competition which has brought these issues to the forefront. This is why Microsoft has to resort to proprietorization of protocols--what Bill Gates calls innovation--to assure that their monopoly survives. See the oft-quoted Halloween Document for clear evidence of Microsoft intentions. See any account of the Sun/Java Case for an example where Microsoft exercised these proprietorization techniques.

I find the DOJ evidence against Microsoft compelling. Even Microsoft's own defense was a great embarassment. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. There are sufficient sites on the Web covering the trial. Check out CNN, ZDNet, Business Week, InfoWorld, etc.

Bork 'em, Danno.

Arne W. Flones Long Ship Software

Pay no mind to the chaos you are seeing. It is merely the shifting of paradigms.

I think the most telling thing in the companion interview with Ed Muth, noted M$ FUD artist, is the following:

[Linux] also lacks a port for the great majority of hardware platforms in the marketplace.

Do what?

Does Windows run on SGI's? RS/6000's? PowerMacs? Or anything else made by Motorola? No. Windows runs only on Intel-made hardware (while Dec/Compaq developed the Alpha, Intel is manufacturing them, so no flames there). Windows on a Netwinder? Ho, ha, it is to laugh.

People get upset about others yelling "FUD! FUD! FUD!" at Microsoft (and others (SCO)) without backing it up.... but there is a legal precedent that says that once you commit a lie of this magnitude, all your other testimony is automatically suspect. I would daresay there is very little in that interview which can't be discredited.

But, you know what? I'm not going to waste my time. I've got better things to do.... like whip up some new groovy apps for Linux. And get paid for it.

"... which is why we're going to take over the world." -- Linus Torvalds

Brin argues that there are only two possible futures. In the first, only the corporations have direct access to the information and the techniques with which to mine it. In the second, everybody has access to that information. The first grants us the illusion of privacy but effectively strips us of our freedom-- you can't know our neighbor's kinks but corporations know exactly what floats your boat. The second strips away any illusion of privacy, but grants you the real freedom to decide for yourself the information you take in and put out.

The question now becomes, do we act to ensure this illusory privacy, or do we demand that you and I have access to the same information those with money and power collect about us? Which do you want? A review of The Transparent Society can be found in Business Week.

Elf Sternberg

Brin argues that there are only two possible futures. In the first, only the corporations have direct access to the information and the techniques with which to mine it. In the second, everybody has access to that information. The first grants us the illusion of privacy but effectively strips us of our freedom-- you can't know our neighbor's kinks but corporations know exactly what floats your boat. The second strips away any illusion of privacy, but grants you the real freedom to decide for yourself the information you take in and put out.

The question now becomes, do we act to ensure this illusory privacy, or do we demand that you and I have access to the same information those with money and power collect about us? Which do you want? A review of The Transparent Society can be found in Business Week.

Elf Sternberg