May 082013
 

howfastnbnJust how fast are the competing NBN plans? It can be hard to cut through the rhetoric in any meaningful fashion, or even just avoid being reduced to a state of bemused boredom.

A Brisbane man, who is not a former Prime Minister, has put together a lovely infographic showing in stark relief the difference between the Labor and Liberal NBN plans. I can’t guarantee the maths behind it, because the site doesn’t explain it, but on its face it looks right.

I continue to be completely bemused that the Liberals thought this plan was a good, or even salable, idea. You can’t espouse the benefits of being a leading, competitive, educated first-world country and then put in place a network which looks old today let alone in 20 years time (but then again successive NSW governments have done that with public transport, so maybe you can).

Of course, this doesn’t address the overall cost of the project, nor does it shed any light on issues such as how a Liberal Government would break free of the existing contracts to change direction. It simply addresses speed and future-proofing – and it does so very prettily.

How Fast is the NBN is at: http://howfastisthenbn.com.au.

Apr 032013
 

Hogwarts would cost about $200 million – and that’s without the magical extras.

The thing I love about this calculation is the level of thought that’s gone into it. The application of logic and maths to a totally useless problem is a joy to behold. The full glorious detail behind the real estate calculation can be found by scrolling down the page here. For the summary, just work your way through the pretty infographic…

 

The Value of Hogwarts Castle

Mar 202013
 

2011-02-16-facebook_creeper_statusSteering your child through the minefield that is social media for teens is a bit like setting out to climb a mountain: There’s no way you can anticipate every danger, all you can do is try to give them the skills to deal with issues as they arise.

This was driven home to me the other night when at a parent information session at my son’s high school there was much discussion about kids using social media. One element I found fascinating was that Instagram has become a big issue. Facebook and Twitter are obvious, but Instagram? I had looked upon Instagram as a neat way of making a photo look good and sharing it. It turns out that many kids are using it as another social network and one which, because it is centered around photos, has the possibility of sliding off-course very quickly. Doing a bit of research on this it became immediately apparent that (a) very many parents had been equally oblivious to the social networking possibilities in Instagram and (b) there are many horror stories about Instagram, in the same way there are many horror stories about Facebook.

Now I’m not really pointing the finger at Instagram here. My point is that there’s really no way as a parent you can target specific applications in trying to address social media. It’s like that fair-ground game where you hit one thing on the head and another pops up somewhere else. You’re never going to win.

Of course there is the burnt-earth approach in which you simply ban your child from the computer or iPad or whatever. But really, today that’s not winning either. Not only do kids increasingly need to use the technology for school, they are only ever going to learn how to navigate this stuff through using it. That’s made tougher by the fact that the lower age limits on most social media apps are being largely ignored by kids and parents alike. I know of very few parents who are enforcing the 13-year-old cut-off.

So what can you do? With younger kids there are some practical things such as insisting that your children use computers in a public room rather than hidden away in their bedroom and insisting you have access to their passwords. But ultimately there comes a point when these approaches wont work. At some point you need to be able to trust your child – just as at some point you need to be able to trust them to walk home from school by themselves. The trick in this is equipping them with the skills required to navigate.

That’s no easy task in an environment where we adults are learning the skills ourselves. Add to that the fact you’re dealing with kids who are going through the difficult early teen years where they are often struggling and learning how to deal with each other face-to-face and the task becomes herculean. But it can’t be dodged.

So what are the skills they need? A short list might be:

  • Don’t engage with strangers: it can be hard to avoid talking to strangers online – the skill lies in politely not letting them get too close.
  • Don’t use your real name on anything.
  • Never, but never, give your address or telephone number.
  • Restrict all your networks to friends only – know how to use the privacy settings on any application you are using.
  • Don’t assume anonymity – in spite of the efforts to be anonymous, assume you’re being watched, that a teacher or parent will see the picture you’re posting or even that an older you will look back and wince at what you are doing.

These things might seem obvious. But in a little personal experiment yesterday I was astonished to find how many of my son’s friends could be found by their real names on Instagram, complete with school details and readily identifiable photos. And this in spite of the digital citizenship classes I know they’ve been through at school.

Every family will have different answers about how to deal with social media. But what’s increasingly clear is that it’s an issue that can’t be ignored. There’s a conversation that needs to be had before problems arise if the kids are to be equipped to avoid pitfalls. And that conversation cannot be about the specifics of Twitter or Facebook – we need to give our kids the skills to deal with situations in whatever application they are using today, or tomorrow. We don’t need to give them a fish, we need to teach them how to fish.

Image: Endless Origami.

Mar 192013
 

Last night I was discussing the use of social media by high school kids. Another parent made a great analogy, pointing to the way that we act differently when we get in a car and assume a degree of anonymity which gives us licence to act in ways we wouldn’t in person. That brought to mind an article I wrote some time ago, the key concept of which was “It’s the very fact that we are being watched less and less that makes our own internal watcher more and more important”. Here it is:

Technology and ethics: pretend someone is watching

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Socrates is watching.

I was just reading that Woolworths is cutting back on the number of self-service checkouts in some stores. The headline reason given is that it will speed up the checkout process; which is not all that surprising given how fiddly it is to checkout by yourself. But the subtext reason is that too many people are ripping-off the system – cheating it, or more simply stealing.

Stealing while using a self-service checkout is not all that difficult. There’s the brutal approach of simply neglecting to scan something – which most people would immediately characterise as shoplifting. More subtle actions include selecting a cheaper fruit or vegetable item (for example selecting carrots instead of the more expensive bananas). Apparently far fewer people characterise this as stealing, although they recognise it is ‘cheating’. According to the Sydney Morning Herald last year something like 16 per cent of people admit to cheating at the self-service checkout. In the UK that number is more like a third. Either way, that’s a lot of people.

Apparently our willingness to do the wrong thing comes down to observation. As long as no one is looking over our shoulder many of us are prepared do chose the dark side of the force. And the modern world is simply giving us more and more opportunities to undertake actions in the relative anonymity that encourages people to steal, cheat or bully.

It’s not just about self-service checkouts. People will steal content online in a way they never would in hardcopy. People will say things to others online that they never would in person. People will accept a level of bullying online that would ring immediate alarm bells in the real world. People will download pirated music. The list goes on.

Technology is increasingly making us personally anonymous. We’re not dealing with real people, just real machines fronting for impersonal organisations: the bank is the ATM or a web interface, the supermarket is an automated checkout, Apple is the iTunes store. It’s not only that there’s no one looking over our shoulder as we interact these days, there’s no one even looking into our face.

There have been a number of studies which have shown that many people will break the rules if no one is watching. Equally there are studies which show that people’s behaviour will change if there is even the illusion that they are being watched. For example, a few years ago researchers from Newcastle University found that just putting up posters of eyes in a cafeteria can demonstrably change people’s littering behaviour.

Observation is clearly part of the issue, but there is, I would argue, more to it than that. Would you go into your local store and finding the shop-keeper was busy out the back walk out with a carton of beer? I think most people would say ‘no’ to that. That would be clearly stealing. But sliding a carton past the self-service checkout is somehow perceived differently. There’s a sense that you’re dealing with a computer, not people. That’s a dangerously powerful mixture – a sense of anonymity taken together with the underlying idea that you are dealing with machines rather than real people. I also wonder if that extends to online social interactions – perhaps the real person who you chatted with over coffee earlier in the day becomes something different and less real when you criticise them later that evening as a ‘friend’ on Facebook.

A few weeks ago someone described ethics to me as ‘it’s what you decide to do when no one is watching you’. As technology allows you to do more and more with no one watching, there’s an increasing need for an ethical framework to guide decisions. A Harvard study on youths using the web a couple of years ago found that most young people are devoid of ethical thinking or consideration for others when using the web. They were incapable of looking at the consequences of their actions beyond themselves or a close circle of friends.

So what to do? Returning to the study mentioned above about staring eyes changing behaviours, apparently this is an unconscious reaction and one it is very difficult to ignore. So maybe we need more computers with pictures of eyes at the top. Or better yet, maybe we all just need to think about our actions and consider whether we would do the same thing if someone was watching: that would be the ethical approach. It’s the very fact that we are being watched less and less that makes our own internal watcher more and more important.

That said, we seem to be living an oxymoron, experiencing two things in parallel which are apparent contradictions. On the one hand we have increasing levels of anonymity in the way we interact with people and organisations. Yet simultaneously our privacy, when we are identified, is being thoroughly eroded.

If you are caught doing the wrong thing, the use of technology can make that move resound hugely and quickly. Once your anonymity is stripped away it you are left more exposed than ever before. Last week a married actor made a pass at the young model he was sitting beside on the plane. Not illegal but sleazy and mildly unpleasant; certainly unethical. He probably felt safely anonymous. Then she Tweeted the experience as it happened, people tracked down his identity from comments he’d made and within hours he was infamous.

It would be good if people just did the right thing. But failing that maybe the maxim of the current age ought to be ‘watch yourself, lest everyone else starts watching you’.

And as for Woolworths and their self-service checkouts? Maybe they just need a slight alteration to their logo:

Woolworths watching.

Mar 152013
 

Monty Python annoying peasantGoogle needs to remember that we’re not powerless peasants.

I recently read a good article from Bruce Schneier which had as its central thesis the idea that Google, Microsoft etc are our new feudal lords. In a security context, we give up a certain amount of control, and in exchange we trust that our lords will both treat us well and protect us from harm.

I thought of this again yesterday when I read that Google was shutting down Google Reader. Now Google has a bit of a history of this – they start things up, give them a run and then shut them down or sell them off if they are no longer fitting with the current direction. The problem for Google with is one of trust. I’m happy enough to trust Google with my data, I’m even happy to let Google riffle through it and use it to serve me up appropriate advertising. That’s a fair trade-off in my book. But I have to be able to trust Google. I have to trust they wont misuse their access to my data. I have to trust they wont abuse the right to serve me advertising. And I have to trust that I’m not going to have to move to other services when they lose interest in the one I’m using.

Now all this applies to anyone in the cloud services area. But for me and many others I know it is more pointed because Google has been the one we trust more.

It’s not the end of the world as we know it if Google shuts down Reader. But it does mean that I will have to find an alternative. In turn that does two things. The first is that I have another service I’m using someone other than Google for – and the more fragmented my services are the less tied I am to Google. The second is that I will think twice next time I use Google for a cloud service; I may well still end up using them, But I’ll think twice.

Of course the feudal analogy breaks down when we realise that we can, in fact, withdraw our contribution to the relationship. We could, for example, set up our own email server. In fact, I have my own; but I still use Google because it is convenient for many things. But I’ll only continue using them if they do a good job and are effective and don’t abuse my trust. I must have a rational reason for using them; as a certain annoying peasant once said “Strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government.” And given the deep levels of unhappiness the news of Reader’s demise is causing, Google needs to remember that there’s always the old anarcho-syndicalist commune…

Image: Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the annoying peasant scene.

Mar 072013
 

facts-or-fiction-imageIt doesn’t take much of a ferret around in Facebook or Twitter to find the people who our politicians are aiming at with their inflammatory statements about refugees and immigration. One fact gets repeated again and again and like a brush fire even when you think it has been put down it’ll pop up somewhere else. This little lovely completely misrepresenting the payments made to refugees has been rearing its ugly head for the better part of a decade and slimed across my screen earlier in the week.

But the thing about having internet access is that it also takes very little effort to get the real facts. And that’s why there is no excuse for just taking stupid, inflammatory statements at face value.

One of my sons is doing an ethics course that is covering voting and why it’s important to be informed: Why casting your vote without being informed of the issues is unethical. Our modern world is a double-edged sword in this respect – the issues we face are increasingly complex and it’s not always easy to stay on top of things, but equally when an issue is important it there are deep and wide sources of real information available.

The issue of the moment is clearly refugees. If you were to listen to the politicians and their more hysterical followers you’d think we were being flooded with both refugees and queue-jumpers and that beating these hordes back from our doors was a full-time occupation. So some facts don’t go amiss. For example that our refugee intake represents less than 4 per cent of our total immigration intake. What any individual does with the facts is up to them, I can respect an informed interpretation of the facts even while not agreeing with it. But I can’t respect giving credence to the politicians’ inflammatory statements without taking two minutes to get the facts that are so readily available.

Obviously this doesn’t apply just to refugees. But if you are interested in some facts from the Government in actual refugee numbers you can’t go past something like this document as a starting point.