i-sako.com

CNET News brings us a “startling” new idea from Harvard Business School professor John Deighton: People should be able to profit from their personal information.

Selling your personal data

It’s a startling idea: Instead of relying on regulators to protect our privacy against telemarketers, data miners and consumer companies, we should capitalize on the value of our personal information and get something in return.

This doesn’t strike me as a startling idea at all. In fact, I’ve long thought this should be the case. The problem as I see it, though, is that information about an individual isn’t particularly valuable until it is aggregated and viewed in the context of a much larger set of data.

Suppose, for example, that my personal information is worth $1.00 to a large number of companies. It’s not really worth my time to contact each of those companies just for a dollar. Indeed, I would have to contact at least one new company every minute to make it even marginally worthwhile. Likewise, it is not going to be worth much more than one dollar for most of those companies to acquire my personal information. For many of them, my information would probably be worth a lot less than a dollar.

What is needed to make Professor Deighton’s idea work is a way for individuals to manage their personal information in a very detailed way. The infrastructure for such a system doesn’t really exist yet, but the idea is not beyond our imagination. Such an idea, if promoted as a means of giving people more control over what is known about them (rather than giving the government more control over people’s lives, as is the case with many current mass-awareness initiatives, like Total Terrorist Information Awareness), it might not meet as much public resistance as TIA-like schemes. One could even imagine occupations springing up around the practice. Personal information agents or data brokers could join the ranks of professionals who deal in providing insurance or managing investment portfolios.

Putting the right to control this information back in the hands of consumers would be a good thing, although I can envision situations where such information might be abused. Actually, it provides some inspiration for a story along the lines of something Philip K. Dick might have written. If only I had some time to write!

I couldn’t help but notice an disturbing element in a recent news story about Ernie Ball, “the world’s leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica.” The story is a pretty typical former-MS-junkie-sees-the-light kind of article, as you can see in the following excerpt:

Rockin’ on without Microsoft

[S]ince jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software—and still lived to tell the tale.

The story tells us that the Business Software Alliance found a few dozen copies of unlicensed software on the hard drives (but not necessarily in use) of a few Ernie Ball hand-me-down computers. For the sin of not erasing the hard drives on these old computers, the company was forced to pay $65,000 in fines, plus $35,000 in legal fees.

The outrage, for me at least, was later in the interview:

Did you want to settle?


Never, never. That’s the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family’s name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That’s why nobody’s ever challenged them—they can’t afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you’re paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It’s not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business.

Since when does a defendant have to pay the legal costs of the prosecution? This strikes me as a corporate terror tactic: Make the little guy fear the costs of litigation so much that he will automatically cave in on the fines, whether he wants to or not.

In any other business, that would be customer abuse, but with Microsoft it is considered “protecting intellectual property rights.” No wonder the guy switched to open source software! Allow me to echo the article’s conclusion: “Thank you, Microsoft.”

Security problems are discovered in Microsoft products more often than even paid professionals can keep track of, so it’s hardly news when someone discovers yet another flaw. What caught my attention this morning, however, was the ironic juxtaposition of the following headlines, both from CNET News.

Microsoft wins Homeland Security deal
(July 16, 2003, 8:14 AM PT)

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded a five-year, $90 million agreement to Microsoft to become the department’s primary technology provider. Under the contract announced Tuesday, Microsoft will supply desktop and server software to the newly created department, which has merged parts of 22 government agencies into one entity. 

Microsoft warns of critical Windows flaw
(July 16, 2003, 1:09 PM PT)

The software giant issued a patch Wednesday morning to plug a critical security hole that could allow an attacker to take control of computers running any version of Windows except for Windows ME. 

…

“It should be emphasized that this vulnerability poses an enormous threat, and appropriate patches provided by Microsoft should be immediately applied,” the group said in an advisory posted to its Web site. The group said that programs designed to exploit the vulnerability will likely be available on the Internet soon.

…

Microsoft is well into the second year of its Trustworthy Computing initiative. Aimed at boosting customers’ trust in the company’s products, the initiative has been both praised as a bold move to become a leader in security and criticized as largely ineffectual. 

Much belated update: July 25

I see that others in the blogosphere noticed the irony of this news as well. In particular, Jeffrey Zeldman wrote what I wanted to express:

[Windows is] produced by a company the Department of Justice found guilty of criminally abusing its monopoly power—a finding that is supposed to result in punishment, not in fat contracts bankrolled by taxpayers.

Eric Meyer also expressed a shared sentiment:

Just the other day, Kat and I were kicking around the idea of moving to another country as sort of a grand adventure and interesting career move for us both. Now the idea almost seems like a reasonable personal safety measure.

Fortunately, I’m already living in another country, one that seems at least somewhat inclined to use reliable systems for important tasks.

Japan Govt Opts for Linux for Payroll System

TOKYO (Reuters) - Computer giant Fujitsu Ltd said on Wednesday it, IBM Japan Ltd and Oki Electric Industry Co have won a 188 million yen ($1.59 million) contract to design a Japanese government payroll computer system using Linux.

There are, of course, concerns about Japan’s use of Microsoft products in other areas, notably in the national ID system.

TechDirt alerted me to a recent outburst by Sen. Orrin Hatch. (At first I took it with a grain of salt, but then I saw it again at Slashdot and again at MetaFilter.)

Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.

The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against illegal music downloads.

During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws.

“No one is interested in destroying anyone’s computer,” replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can’t.

“I’m interested,” Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone’s computer “may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights.”

One astute observer commented that this seems to represent a significant shift in Hatch’s position a few years ago:

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on The Future of Digital Music: Is There an Upside to Downloading?

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take it as a basic premise that our copyright laws must play a role - a strong role - in protecting creative works over the Internet. These protections, however, must be secured in a manner which is mindful of the impact related regulation can have on the free flow of ideas that a decentralized, open network like the Internet creates. We must protect the rights of the creator. But we cannot, in the name of copyright, unduly burden consumers and the promising technology the Internet presents to all of us.

Someone else pointed out that this is, in all likelihood, an extremist statement designed to make a subsequent “compromise” on Hatch’s part seem far more reasonable by way of comparison. (That’s an unfortunately common tactic among Republicans these days, it seems. Does it remind you of Bush’s derisive “itty-bitty” remarks about the $350 billion tax cut? It should.) Yet another suggested that ”down the Hatch” might become a euphemism for the destruction of fair use.

So what would be Hatch’s compromise position? Two strikes, then your computer shuts down until you contact the RIAA (or, perhaps more likely, Microsoft) to explain your behavior? (Don’t laugh, you can expect Microsoft to pursue that kind of control in future versions of Windows.)

It seems to me, though, that this whole notion of destroying or shutting down someone’s computer because they’ve been downloading music in violation of copyright laws is misguided.

First of all, there would be very few people violating copyright laws by downloading music if the music industry would get its shit together and stop treating its customers like criminals and attempting to criminalize even non-infringing acts of innovation. The demand for online music services is strong, but the RIAA has been completely hostile to it. Should you retain the legal protections of copyright (which exist to help you earn money from your creations) if you refuse to acknowledge how the world would like to pay you?

Apple seems to have created a store that enables people to download music in a way that respects copyright laws for about 99¢ per song. I suspect that, given a choice, people would support such a service. Given no choice, however, many will simply download the music anyway, in violation of copyright laws. So it really all boils down to whether the consumers are given a choice, does it not? Under these circumstances, the laws of capitalism (and common sense) suggest that the RIAA should stop burying its collective head in the sand and start an online music service! They’ve already made it abundantly clear that they have the rights…

Let’s also stop to consider the rights in question here. Sen. Hatch is suggesting that people’s computers (average retail value: approx. $900) should be destroyed to protect the music industry’s right to profit from a downloaded song (apparent retail value: 99¢). On one hand, we are talking about a physical piece of property, a computer for which the owner paid a reasonable amount of money; on the other hand, we have an intangible piece of intellectual property. In my mind, the simple fact that the latter is a non-rivalrous resource that can be copied perfectly at nearly no cost makes any rights its owner would assert weaker than those of the former, which is a very rivalrous resource that cannot be copied easily. Yes, I acknowledge that this analysis is biased toward the consumer’s point of view (from the industry’s point of view, each song has a market value far greater than that of a computer), but that’s how it should be! The marketplace is supposed to respond to consumer demand; laws are supposed to benefit the people. The notion that corporations should have the same rights (or even much stronger rights, as the $900 vs. 99¢ example is intended to illustrate) as people is wrong.

Sure, the RIAA can claim that the technology is a threat to its business interests. Tell it to the people who used to make horseshoes—society has the right to move beyond outdated business models.

I have been wondering what will happen to Mozilla now that Netscape has been laid to rest. CNET asks ”Is this the end of Netscape?”, but I think a more important question would be “Is this the end of Mozilla?!”.

The message boards at Mozillazine and this article at Salon seem relatively upbeat, but I’m finding it difficult to share in any enthusiasm, especially after reading this article: Microsoft to abandon standalone IE .

Microsoft is phasing out standalone versions of its Internet Explorer Web browser, according to statements attributed to IE program manager Brian Countryman in an interview posted on the software giant’s Web site.

It’s not hard to imagine that the use of the browser built into future versions of Windows will start to require a subscription to the Microsoft Network. We already know that it will require acceptance of Microsoft’s Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (known in its previous incarnation as “Palladium"); and we all know what that means: Loss of control over how “your” computer and “your” data is used and a stranglehold on the market for, well, just about everything that can be digitized.

Brace yourselves for full-spectrum domination of everything. Not even registering your copy of Opera will save you now.

June 3 Update

Zeldman points out some of the implications of this deal in ”IE/AOL/Netscape: what happens next?” Among other important questions was this one, which I would like to hear a Microsoft spokesperson address:

What happens to CSS3 and XHTML 2 if the bulk of web users (including AOL users) “standardize” on a year 2000 browser for the next three to seven years?

Zeldman’s article also confirms what I feared: You will have to either buy Microsoft’s next operating system (if you are a Windows user) or subscribe to MSN (if you are a Mac user) to be able to continue to use the most current version of MSIE.

Now that the browser wars are over, Microsoft can go back to treating customers like property.