RSS Feed

Category Archives: Technology

Bullies on the Interactive Playground

Posted on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43993720@N02/4336771398/

By Oversocialized on Flickr

Facebook and I had a deal.  I agreed to give them a basic amount of my information, use their site regularly to increase site traffic (and therefore their potential for ad revenue), and promote the site to my friends.  In exchange, Facebook agreed to let me use their servers to post my vacation photos, interact with friends and control my privacy settings.

Without my consent, Facebook broke the deal.

When it comes to reactions about Facebook’s lax privacy concerns, there appear to be two camps.  On one side, people say that Facebook owes its users the degree of privacy they were promised when they signed up.  The other side says that Facebook is a free site and therefore isn’t accountable to its users.  I believe the former, Steve Tuttle of Newsweek, among others, believes the latter.

In a May 27th post titled “Who Said Facebook Owes You Privacy?” Tuttle argues that Facebook is free and no one is forcing people to use it. And while he acknowledges that Facebook has changed privacy rules without consent, he basically says tough-luck to you:

[I]f Facebook guarantees one level of privacy and doesn’t hold up its end of the bargain, the company should be held accountable. By which I mean it could potentially pay a price if enough people get outraged and someone invents a new, improved Facebook that does a better job guaranteeing privacy. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Mr. Tuttle and I agree that Facebook is acting like a bully.  But my only options are to continue to be bullied or leave?  Those aren’t options.  No matter what, I get screwed.

Let’s face it: I’m probably not going to quit Facebook anytime soon.  I’ve started to delete as much personal information as I can, but I still use the site regularly.  Facebook has become essential to my social life – at least in so far as a technology can be essential.  No, I won’t die without Facebook, but I also won’t get to see new baby pictures or get invited to many events.  Not to mention keep my job since a big part of it is working with social media.

I know that this doesn’t make a lot of sense to people of older generations (I listened to a teenager yesterday exclaim in horror that my aunt’s cell phone didn’t have a colour screen), and I understand where Mr. Tuttle is coming from, but that doesn’t change the reality:  Social media is mainstream and it’s sticking around.

Mr. Tuttle makes good points about privacy though: The internet is not private – no matter what a corporation tells you – people are stupid, and things will be found.  But while the obvious solution is “don’t ever do anything stupid” (at least not in front of anyone with a camera), it doesn’t make sense in the real world.

People are dumb and the onus cannot be exclusively on internet users to protect themselves while we let corporations off the hook.

It’s clear that Facebook is behaving badly.  They monopolize social media which means they will continue to bully people into information-sharing submission.  The company has an unscrupulous CEO at the helm and has managed to insert itself into the daily lives of people of all ages.

As much as any company should be able to control their future, it can’t be at the expense of the customers it has relied on to make it profitable to begin with.  And even on the Internet, there ought to be an expectation that companies act as responsible corporate citizens.

So what does Facebook owe me? At the very least, they owe me the privacy levels I agreed to.  But a little respect would go a long way.

Some other Facebook Rants and Observations:

Who Needs Friends Like Facebook?

Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline

A Handy Facebook-to-English Translator

An Open Letter from Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook moves to fix privacy loophole after WSJ review

Facebook: personalization vs. privacy

Facebook’s Zuckerberg Answers Critics With New Privacy Controls

The Big Game, Zuckerberg and Overplaying your Hand

Remembering Mario: Nostalgia and Nintendo Wii

Posted on

Some of you will remember that fateful day, circa 1991, when your big brother came home with a Super Nintendo system.  You gathered with your six siblings (or maybe you just had two) in the cramped family room for the reveal of the wondrous world of Super Mario Bros.

I remember forcing myself not to lurch my hands into the air as I made Mario leap over the gap.  I remember the feeling of awe as I watched my brother successfully jump from platform to platform.  I anxiously awaited my turn – though it disappeared as quickly as it came.

But since then I’ve had years of practice.  In fact, just today Ryan said “I’ve never dated anyone who was as good as Mario as you are.”

And he can only say that because I’ve been able to resurrect Mario from his defunct video-game-system grave on my new Nintendo Wii.

The internet ready Wii allows me to download hundreds of old games right in my living room.

Now, I admit, not all the games are as good as I remember.  The graphics in Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario Kart are grainy and rather hard to look at.  But somehow Super Mario World is perfect. It is clear — at least as clear as it ever was — and with the addition of the classic controller, I can kick that game’s ass like no game’s ass has been kicked before.

Part of me appreciates the nostalgia. Part of me is angry that valuable pieces of my brain are consumed with the location of the hidden key in Forest of Illusion 4.  Mostly I am just amazed at the brilliance of the business model.

With the advent of the internet, Nintendo is now able to sell games to me directly — for the second time in my life, I might add — from any of their previous systems, and convince me to buy a controller adapter to boot.

It’s brilliant.  In the past, old games were sold at garage sales or second hand stores.  Nintendo only profited once.  Now, they sell old games for $2-$10, with almost no effort or expense on their part.  These games haven’t been remastered or digitally altered. They are the same crappy graphics that they had in 1985, or 1991, or 1995.

Wii has changed the face of video gaming on many fronts.

The Wii was released at about the same time as the Playstation 3.  While the PS3 was competing on graphics for the “gamer” market, Nintendo’s Wii had simplified graphics, basic games and a motion sensitive remote.

Then the Wii Fit came along and suddenly Nintendo had created a world of video game fitness.  What’s more, since Nintendo created the foundation, other companies have made hundreds of games and components for fitness on Wii — that’s additional value that Nintendo didn’t spend a dime on.

In a world where technology gets exponentially more complicated and less inclusive, Nintendo has created a product that not only appeals to the traditional video game audience, but also to large portions of the general public.  Whether it’s fitness enthusiasts, kids, grannies or people who miss their childhood like I do, Wii is where it’s at.

The Lies They Weave on Reality TV

Posted on

I’ve always been a bit of a know-it-all — a statement which comes of no surprise to anyone who knows me. But behind the need to show everyone how smart I am is a need to actually be smart. I like to collect weird information.

So tonight I went to a special presentation at CBC about the Dragon’s Den television show — not so much to learn about business, but instead to sate my curiosity about how the show works. It was sponsored by Enterprise Toronto, and as such David Miller showed up to talk about all the great things the City is doing for entrepreneurs and how great Toronto is. It was super positive.

Then some former contestants, Mark of Ecotraction and the women of Dig It Gardening Gloves, spoke about their success, a bit about how the deals, and answered some questions on strategy. Mostly it was pretty vague.

When I first saw the Dig It women in the lobby I was disappointed. I had seen their episode, and remembered the deal they got on the show: for $50,000, Kevin O’Leary got 10% of their company, plus 3% of future sales in perpetuity. The other dragons tried to warn the women against the deal because it was such a crap deal. Basically, I thought these women were idiots.

But then the news broke: The deal we saw the Dig It girls take on TV was not the deal they actually ended up with.

In reality, the women left with a deal from Kevin that was exactly what they asked for: $50, 000 for 10% of their company. There were no royalties and they reserved the right to buy that 10% back at the same rate if Kevin failed to get them into the US Market.

That’s a huge difference! Not only did they turn down Jim for a good deal (despite the way it looks in the episode) but they made a very good deal.

Reality TV is a big, fat, fucking liar!

I know that this isn’t exactly news– afterall, most people know that shows have producers, and some (like The Hills and Jon and Kate) are much more scripted than others. Even on the Biggest Loser I realize that clever editing is often to blame for making some characters heroes while others are vilified.

But this isn’t just any reality TV, this is the CBC. And more than that, it is business TV.

It blew my mind. And kind of pissed me off that it was that far off what had actually happened.

But then the producers of the show, Lisa Gabriele and Tracie Tighe, came on they totally restored my faith.

It wasn’t just that they were total bitches (in the BEST possible way!), and it wasn’t just because the face off between the producers and the moronic audience members asking stupid questions felt like live reality tv, it was because they were honest.

These women wanted to make the best possible TV they could. Sure, some of the editing is sneaky, but the end result is not meant to be misleading. It is crafted to be really good TV. And if you’ve watched the show, you know it is, in fact, good TV. These women just won a Gemini award for Dragon’s Den, they know what they’re doing.

No one was hiding the fact that there is creative editing. They were proud of it. And it was that honesty, combined with the passion for their work (ok, and the snarky responses) that made me fall in love with them.

All and all, for a free event it was rather fabulous. It left me seriously amused, and a tiny bit better informed. I’ll be sure that you know that last part any chance I get.

Cooking Up a Mess

Posted on

New recipes, like sex positions, need to be practiced.  You’ve got to get the basics down before attempting to go it alone.

But I am a terribly impatient person, and I can’t follow a recipe. More accurately, I refuse to follow a recipe.

It’s not that I think that I am somehow more qualified than a trained chef — though I often refuse to use the suggested amount of fat — it is because I just can’t be bothered.

For the most part, it works out OK. I tend to make things like stir-frys that really can’t be ruined by experimentation.  But after receiving a new Vegetarian cookbook for Christmas, and after realizing that I will never lose weight on diet of bagels and bananas, I decided to expand my cooking repertoire.

The first night I made a noodle-free lasagna.  I didn’t think to actually check how many zucchinis I needed for the base layers.  Nor did I feel like buying all the obscure ingredients on the list.  And then, despite it not being a part of the recipe, I mixed up some cottage cheese and spinach as an alternative to a sauce layer.  But I didn’t have enough cottage cheese, so I used some leftover tofu.

In the end it wasn’t bad.  But it wasn’t lasagna.

The next recipe I decided to tackle was Falafel.  Normally I would have attempted anything fried, but because it appeared to be a reasonably healthy choice (merely pan fried, not deep fried), I thought I’d give it a shot.

I was at work when I made the plan so I didn’t have the list of ingredients when I went to the grocery store. I had a rough idea of what I needed, and I consulted some internet recipes to come up with a list.  It was mostly right, save for some obscure spices I wasn’t going to bother buying to use only a teaspoon of anyway (another problem I have).

But when I got home, I discovered that I had misread the recipe – it called for two cups of cooking oil, not two tablespoons, and the mixture was supposed to chill for 2 hours before cooking.

They were edible, but I didn’t learn my lesson.

All I really learned is that I am too lazy to shop properly, and don’t like complicated instructions.

Luckily for me, there’s an app for that.

The Scots waste a lot of food – about $800 Canadian dollars worth a year.  So a British company has released an iPhone app called Love Food, Hate Waste.  It allows you to look in your fridge to see what you already have, put that information into the app, and find a recipe that won’t require a big shopping trip.  It also has a portion size planner to avoid making too much.

Maybe it will help me.  Sure, I might refuse to do a few of the steps, but at least I don’t have to make a special trip to the store.

Even if it doesn’t make me a better cook, with all the money I’ll save on food I could actually afford an iPhone.



3-D Mania: Awesome or a waste of time?

Posted on

An article in the New York Times this morning suggests that the abundance of 3-D movies being released is ruining the lives of massive movie studios.  That is, unless you’re the studio raking in billions from Avatar, which is  is clogging up the few available American 3-D screens and still selling out the Imax 3-D and many other theatres in Toronto after 6 weeks.

Disney is afraid that they won’t be able to get Alice in Wonderland into pricier Imax and 3-D theatres if Avatar continues to perform as well as it has.

Warner “has just decided to convert” Clash of the Titans to 3-D to cash in on the mania. So despite their lame logic, they have good reason to be scared.

Avatar aside, there are 60 movies that are set to be released in 3-D over the next three years.

But I have to wonder, is all this 3-D is necessary?

I have seen four 3-D movies in my life (not counting Amity Ville Horror 3D that I rented sans the glasses in high school): Harry Potter (for 20 minutes at the end) Coraline, Up, and Avatar.  In all four cases it was neat, but certainly not necessary.

I barely noticed the 3-D in Coraline (and at times it was disorienting).  The images floating off the screen were neat in Up, but the dialogue and plot are what made the movie great.  The brief addition of 3-D for the final battle in Harry Potter scared the crap out of me (dragons and bad guys up in my face) and was definitely worth the extra cash, but wouldn’t have been nearly as effective had it been for the whole film. And then there is Avatar.

Avatar was a terrible screenplay covered up by a breathtaking film.  The jungle of Pandora, with it’s glowing foliage and jellyfish-like trees, is the setting of one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen.  3D made it cool, but the motion capturing technology that made a digital Sigourney Weaver so very realistic was the awesome part.

3-D technology used to be special.  Now it’s everywhere.  It costs more, in many cases it doesn’t make that much of a difference, and theatres can’t handle it.  People like it – but I don’t think they’d notice if it weren’t available.

Audiences aren’t exactly known for their discerning tastes, and what sells is what drives decision making. But maybe some of this wasted money could be spent on something better — whether it be other new forms of technology to keep movies evolving, or good movies that could use some mainstream attention. Afterall, audiences will bite on anything if enough money is thrown behind it.

Is an eBook a Kid’s Best Friend?

Posted on

This morning I listened to an old recording of CBC radio commentary segments my mother did when I was a child. She was a trained teacher, and an avid lover of books.

As part of a piece about child literacy and the importance of reading aloud to children, she read my favourite story, The Tiger Who Came To Tea, to me on the air.  As she read, my two and a half year old voice interrupted with the words I knew, and other sounds that don’t appear to have been words at all.  The joy in both of our voices is palpable.

My love of children’s books hasn’t faded since then.  So when I was browsing the Internet recently, I was excited to come across OneMoreStory.com.  It’s a clever site that offers an impressive audio collection of lesser known children’s stories.  Kids can view the original illustrations from the printed book, and follow along with the text as they hear the story spoken aloud.  The site boasts that “through a simple point and click process, children . . . can have the book read to them whenever they want.”

I listened to a whimsical and funny story called “The Rattletrap Car” about a family going to the beach in a rickety car.  Along the way, the car needs to be fixed with ridiculous objects like beach balls, fudge, and sailboats.  The images on the screen were exact replicas of those in the print copy.  The words turned red to indicate the word I was hearing, and the sounds of silence and the appearance of a green arrow signalled it was time to “turn the page.”  There was even musical accompaniment.

But I was disappointed.  While there was nothing wrong with the website itself, and the stories available were lovely, I couldn’t shake the feeling that it felt wrong.  Something was missing.

The voice that spoke the words to me sounded like someone’s mother.  She may even have been someone’s mother, but she wasn’t my mother.  She wasn’t anyone I’d ever met.  I sat staring at a computer screen, listening to the words, alone.

My fondest memory of my mother is sitting on her lap, reading a book.  Listening to her radio segment again brought tears to my eyes.  It was clear that reading stories with my mum was not only essential for fostering a love of words, imagination and story telling, but also bonding with my mother, who died eight months after it was recorded.

The publishing world has been up in arms in recent years about e-books.  The release of the Amazon Kindle in Canada has increased tensions.  Publishers and authors are terrified that the presence of e-books will ruin the reading experience, infringe on copyrights and bankrupt the original industry.  But whether adults give up physical books in lieu of fancier, digital versions hardly seems like the biggest issue at hand.  The publishing industry, in time, will adapt to the new technology.  What I am really worried about is whether or not children continue to experience books in the traditional way – or at all.

I don’t doubt that this website will help children learn to read.  If people want to use sites like this as a supplement to their regular reading schedule with their children, then I think that’s great.  What I am not OK with is letting technology take the place of parents in an activity as crucial to young children’s development as reading.

Most of the children I know have a vast amount of computer knowledge relative to their young ages and could easily access the books on this site on their own.  Since sitting at a computer is rarely a two-person activity, and getting children to simply read seems to be the main goal of most reading programs, it is easy to imagine children enjoying these online books alone.  But by leaving kids to be taught by a computer instead of a parent or caregiver, they are potentially missing out on a broader experience.

To quote my mum: “at the very least, story time provides an excuse for a cozy cuddle with your kid, and it’s a great opportunity for some guaranteed fun together.”

I want my future children to grow up reading.  I want them to remember not only the stories they loved, but also the experience of reading those books with someone that loved them.

Whois Lizz Bryce

Posted on

This weekend I bought my own domain name and became the proud owner of LizzBryce.com. The practical use has yet to be determined, but for $5 I figured I couldn’t go wrong.

As it turns out, the simple act of purchasing a domain name is the Internet equivalent of spray painting my personal information on the side of the CN tower.

I’ve wanted to own my domain name for some time now. I’ve always been interested in web design and I thought that this would be an opportunity to practice with little consequence. What I hadn’t counted on was the amount of information I was about to reveal to the general public. Unbeknownst to me, every domain name owner on the Internet is listed in a database called “Whois.

I was shocked when I discovered this. As a blogger, I had generally refrained from revealing too many personal details or pictures on my site. While I knew I would be giving up some of this anonymity by purchasing a domain with my full name, I comforted myself knowing that there is not much that can be done with a name – and besides, it already shows up on Facebook.

Even more surprising than the existence of this database was the fact that I wasn’t warned about it before I made my purchase. A full day after completing the transaction, I received an e-mail in my inbox sounding the alarms: “Your Personal Information is Not Protected!” read the subject line. My domain registrar was offering to mask my identity, at least on the public list. For only $11 a year I could avoid becoming one of 275,000 Americans who become “victims of Internet crime.”

I didn’t know what to do. The e-mail left me feeling vulnerable and confused. I had never heard of the database so I decided to do some investigating.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization formed to oversee Internet-related tasks that were once performed by the U.S. government, supervises the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. According to ICANN’s website, domain registrars are required to “collect and provide free public access to the . . . date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the administrative contact.” For celebrities like Britney Spears or Brad Pitt, the database lists the law firm that handles their website. For business websites the name and address of the business is listed. In my case, my name, home address, phone number, and e-mail were out there for the world to see.

Of course there are many websites that reveal personal information. Canada411 lists home phone numbers and addresses, and allows people to perform “reverse lookups” by searching by name, phone number or address. Google Street View shows my apartment building, the coffee shop I see from my window and the bookstore across the street – not to mention the cars that were driving by at the time the pictures were taken. And I use these technologies often – sometimes for serious reasons, and sometimes just for fun. But I can’t help but ask have we gone too far?

All of these technologies have legitimate uses, and I believe were conceived with good intentions. Whois is meant to prevent people from using the Internet as a shield when promoting hateful, dangerous or illegal content. But while the rules governing the database state that persons may not use it for unlawful purposes, I am pretty sure that anyone seeking out information for unlawful reasons doesn’t care.

So whether it was to protect myself from criminals, or because I plan to become a criminal myself, I paid that $11 and I will sleep easier tonight. Will you?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers