report on the public credit
Techdirt
Easily digestible tech news...
- Journalism Professor Says Citizen Journalists Should Be Regulated
There's just something about the idea a lack of "elite" gatekeepers that upsets some people. It's why you hear complaints about Wikipedia or blogs or home videos on YouTube. For some reason, there are a group of folks (often the former elitist gatekeepers) who feel that since not all of the content is great, useful or interesting, it all is problematic in some way or another. The latest to express this type of viewpoint is David Hazinski, a journalism professor and former NBC correspondent, claiming that "unfettered" citizen journalism is "too risky" and that it needs to be regulated (via Romenesko) by "official" media companies, handing out "certificates" to citizen journalists. Unfortunately, his basic premise seems to be incorrect. He states: "Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide." That's not quite true. While some supporters may claim that, in general the benefits of the idea that anyone can be a reporter isn't necessarily about reliable information, but about providing additional viewpoints and information to try to make sure that more of the story is out there for people to find. It's not necessarily about being better -- but just giving an outlet to people who can add more to the story. He's certainly right that it can be abused, but that's missing the point. Sure it can be abused. But so can the traditional press. What's more important is that such abuses can also be outed and brought to light, just like any other news story. Hazinski is right that professional journalists should be verifying the information provided by "citizen journalists" but that should be true of anyone they accept information from. Almost all of the complaints he lobs at these untrained journalists applies equally to the trained ones -- so it's hard to interpret this piece as anything but complaints from someone who doesn't like the riffraff encroaching on his turf.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Security Firm Sophos Calls WiFi Piggybacking 'Stealing'
It should come as no surprise that a security firm, in this case Sophos, is casting the act of using a neighbor's unsecured Wi-Fi access point as a crime. The bigger the threat, the more money there is for security solution vendors and consultants. In the latest research, Sophos found that 54% of wireless users surveyed had "stolen" access at one time or another. The report then frames these casual users as thieves by lumping them in with the epithet "cybercriminals". Techdirt's position has been steady: If a hosting Wi-Fi owner transmits a signal into your property or public area, and that signal proactively announces an SSID which functions like an invite, yet the host has left the network unlocked, then the host's DHCP server actively accommodates the guest and offers an IP address for them to use... then why would any casual user suppose the host's intention is not to share that Wi-Fi? Certainly the host's actions indicate an intent to share. There is no lock breached, there is no violation of private property. There is no trespass. But forget these technical arguments, let's look at the Sophos data: a 54% majority of Wi-Fi users have shared someone's Wi-Fi (and I'd say more have but weren't aware). Are the majority of people really cybercriminals? Also, if victims need to be told that they were "robbed" by Sophos research and a press release, and sensationalist news stories, just how victimized were they? Yes, there are real risks to offering an open AP, so we advise most people to lock down their Wi-Fi. That doesn't make criminals of cybervisitors.
Obviously, the situation can be very different if just a few parameters are changed:- If ANY kind of hack or bypass is needed to get through some form of security, then the innocence of the visitor is highly dubious. Even the easily hacked WEP is 100% functional as a signal that the host does not want "visitors".
- Any kind of viewing, or messing around inside the host's LAN, PCs, and other equipment is illegal through existing laws. Doing so is no longer a victimless activity.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Why Is Yahoo Siding With Patent Hoarders?
Back in September, we noted that the Supreme Court was going to hear a rather important case concerning patents, determining whether or not it's possible for a patent holder to "double dip" and get license fees up and down the supply chain. The anonymous Patent Troll Tracker alerts us to the fact that a ton of organizations and companies have now filed amicus briefs in support of one side or the other (or neither, in a few cases). While the Troll Tracker's post focuses on the fact that most of the briefs filed in support of LG's position appear to come from patent hoarding firms (and their attorneys), at the end he does mention in passing that Yahoo! sided with LG as well. While he doesn't name them, the Troll Tracker notes that most of the firms filing against LG's position come from the tech industry. This is the usual breakdown. Companies that rely on patents to make a living tend to want stronger patents (no surprise there). Companies that tend to focus on business models that don't require intellectual monopolies tend to favor weaker patent laws. That said, it seems quite odd that Yahoo! falls in with the former, rather than the latter. While it has been involved with some patent lawsuits (most notably, the dispute with Google over paid search patents), Yahoo tends to be more focused on providing useful services rather than focusing on its patent portfolio. Hopefully, this isn't a sign of things to come. We've certainly seen other formerly successful companies turn to patent lawsuits after they failed in the marketplace. Perhaps Yahoo is signaling to the world where its future lies.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Are Sprint And Clearwire Getting Back Together Over WiMax?
A month ago, we noted that the end of Sprint and Clearwire's WiMax partnership was bad news for just about everyone involved. Almost no one could come up with a good reason for Sprint and Clearwire to end the partnership -- and now it appears that, just like A-Rod returning to the Yankees after a brief breakup, the rumors now are that Sprint and Clearwire are getting back together over WiMax. This really isn't all that surprising. Both companies had to realize it made more sense to work together on this than going it alone -- and with Verizon Wireless finally deciding to go with LTE for its next generation solution, both Sprint and Clearwire finally realized that they are going to have some competition out there for wireless broadband, and it would help both companies not to slow down the rollout. At least Scott Boras won't make any more money off of this deal. Update: Then again, maybe not. Apparently the original report on the potential of Sprint and Clearwire getting back together is incorrect. Still, it wouldn't be surprising if it did eventually happen anywa